Arkansas Senate approves State Library Board overhaul after dissolution bill fails
Arkansas lawmakers are considering removing all seven members of the State Library Board and allowing Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders to replace them later this year.
Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, filed the bill Wednesday night, less than two hours after a House committee rejected Senate Bill 536, a proposal to abolish both the State Library and its board and transfer their powers and responsibilities to the Arkansas Department of Education.
Senate Bill 640 received initial committee approval Thursday morning and passed the full Senate in the afternoon. Bills usually are not heard by the full House or Senate until at least a day after passing committees, but the Senate suspended the rules Thursday to hear bills that had passed committee that morning.
The seven-member State Library Board disburses state funds to public libraries on a quarterly basis. It has appeared 'fairly dysfunctional' at its recent meetings, so the Legislature should 'wipe the board clean,' Dismang told the Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs.
At a special meeting in March, the board rejected two motions with a 4-3 vote. They would have created nonbinding policies to protect children from 'sexually explicit' content in libraries and detached the State Library from the American Library Association. By the same split vote, the board passed a separate motion aimed at protecting children in libraries while honoring the First Amendment and library material selection standards.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Jonesboro, filed SB 536 in response to the two failed motions, which he had asked the board to pass in order to ensure its survival. Sullivan has targeted the library board for its refusal to adopt policies directing public libraries to keep certain materials out of the hands of minors.
Arkansas senator continues mission to eliminate State Library Board, cites unfulfilled bargain
Dismang told the Advocate that Sullivan's requests were 'not extreme' and should not have been difficult for the board to accommodate, particularly the one regarding content accessible to minors.
'I don't think anyone's innocent in the way that those conversations are happening on that board,' he said. '…The tact both ways was not something that I was really impressed with, so starting over makes sense.'
The three board members who supported Sullivan's requests were all Sanders appointees: former Republican state senator Jason Rapert, who moved to approve the requests; Shari Bales, whom the Senate confirmed alongside Rapert, and Sydney McKenzie, who joined the board in January and is married to Rogers Republican Rep. Brit McKenzie.
SB 640 would require the seven new members to draw lots determining how their terms will be staggered, ending between one and seven years from when the bill becomes law. Subsequent appointees would serve seven-year terms, the current length of time board members serve.
Sens. Bryan King, R-Green Forest, and Clarke Tucker, D-Little Rock, were the only Senate State Agencies committee members to oppose sending SB 640 to the Senate floor Thursday. Both voted against SB 536 on the floor last week, when the Senate passed the bill with 18 votes, the slimmest possible margin.
King, Democratic Sen. Reginald Murdock of Marianna and GOP Sen. Ron Caldwell of Wynne did not vote on SB 640 Thursday afternoon. The Senate's 27 other Republicans voted for SB 640. The remaining five Senate Democrats, including Tucker, voted against the bill, though Sen. Fred Love, D-Mabelvale, was erroneously recorded as voting in favor.
Tucker told the Senate last week that the Legislature has the authority to reconstitute the State Library Board instead of dissolving it if lawmakers are dissatisfied with it. He said Thursday in an interview that SB 640 'is the least harmful version of anything that we can do,' but he opposed the bill because he didn't believe reconstituting the board was necessary.
The House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs, the same panel that rejected SB 536, will be next to hear SB 640.
All six Senate Democrats and four Republicans, including King, voted against confirming Rapert to the State Library Board in December 2023. King and Tucker expressed concern during Thursday's committee meeting that Rapert might be reappointed if SB 640 becomes law. The bill does not preclude current members from reappointment.
When asked via email Thursday whether he would seek reappointment, Rapert said his appointment to the board was Sanders' choice, not his, and he believes he has 'done the job' expected of him.
'I fight for what is right and will continue to do so in all arenas of government,' said Rapert, founder of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, a conservative group responsible for model legislation introduced in several statehouses nationwide, including bans on abortion and gender-affirming medical care.
During his tenure on the board, Rapert has repeatedly sought to withhold state funds from libraries where 'sexually explicit' content is within children's reach. The board has consistently voted against this proposal, and Rapert has called for the dissolution of the board.
He said he would have been satisfied with SB 536 becoming law but believed the passage of SB 640 would still be 'a blessing.'
'My hope is that new members on the board will allow for policies to be adopted to encourage our public libraries to ensure that children are protected from exposure to sexually explicit materials inappropriate for their age,' Rapert said. 'That has been my goal since day one… We would not be at this point if the members of that board had listened and taken positive action.'
The State Library Board is scheduled to meet the second Friday in May and in August. If SB 640 becomes law, it will go into effect Aug. 1, and it gives Sanders 30 days to replace the board.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Board Chairwoman Deborah Knox said in an interview that she was 'encouraged' that the State Library is no longer likely to be abolished but 'discouraged' that she might lose her position.
The board will be more likely to endorse Rapert's efforts to detach from the American Library Association and to 'sequester books' based on appropriateness for minors if all seven members are Sanders appointees, Knox said.
'I do feel that the State Library Board is essential and the Arkansas State Library itself is essential,' Knox said. 'So any way that it can continue, I'm for [that] even if I'm not a part of it.'
Earlier this year, Sullivan sponsored Senate Bill 184, which would have abolished both the State Library Board and the Arkansas Educational Television Commission, the panel that oversees Arkansas PBS. He and the commission chair said in March that they had reached an agreement that kept the PBS commission alive; Sanders appointed Sullivan's wife to the panel last year.
SB 536 would have codified several new criteria for libraries to receive state funds, including minimum hours of operation per year and 'prohibit[ing] access to age-inappropriate materials to a person who is sixteen (16) years old or younger.'
Dismang was one of three senators to vote present on SB 536. He told the Advocate Thursday that despite his concerns about the current board, he believed the State Library should continue to exist, partly because it oversees historical records that SB 536 would have transferred to the Department of Education.
SB 640's House sponsor, Rep. Howard Beaty, R-Crossett, was among the bipartisan opposition to SB 536 during Wednesday's committee meeting. He said the conflict surrounding the State Library Board 'could have been resolved very easily' if people on both sides had not 'dug their heels in and decided they weren't going to negotiate.'
Sullivan amended SB 536 Wednesday, meaning it would have had to receive Senate approval again before going to Sanders' desk. The Legislature will not meet Friday and plans to conclude the session next Wednesday, making it difficult for SB 536 to complete the legislative process if House State Agencies were to reconsider and pass the bill.
The amendment to SB 536 removed a requirement for libraries' collections not to have any materials that state law considers 'harmful to minors' in order to receive state funding. Sullivan said he amended the bill 'at the request of librarians and community members.'
One of those community members was Victoria Kelley of Yellville, she told the Advocate Thursday. She said SB 640 concerned her because she disagreed with dismissing 'entire boards without justifying the 'cause' for what individuals did wrong,' which continues 'a bad precedent' that began in her home of Marion County.
In December, County Judge Jason Stumph and the county Quorum Court dismissed the local library's existing board members and later replaced them all in January. Stumph said the previous board failed to supervise Dana Scott, the director of the Yellville library who was dismissed and arrested Dec. 2 for alleged financial crimes.
Marion County officials appoint new library board, accept interim library manager's resignation
Staggered terms on the State Library Board are 'meant as a buffer to the kind of personal and partisan targeting we're seeing' so that one governor cannot 'overhaul' the body, Kelley said.
Kristin Stuart of Little Rock told the Advocate she had similar frustrations. She sought to speak against SB 640 during Thursday's State Agencies committee meeting, but chairman Sen. Scott Flippo, R-Bull Shoals, denied her the opportunity because she had not signed up in advance.
'I think it's really just insane that they want to dismantle the board after the outright abolition [bill] failed,' Stuart said. 'It's a power grab. It's an attempt to politicize a body that's operated independently for decades without partisan interference.'
Two good things about SB 640, Kelley said, are that the State Library will continue to exist and that new members will not make it easier for the board to 'upend the Constitution.'
SB 536 had similarly 'fatal' language as Act 372 of 2023, Arkansas Library Association (ArLA) President-elect Adam Webb said Wednesday. A federal judge blocked portions of the Sullivan-sponsored law last year on First Amendment grounds, and the state is appealing the ruling.
The ArLA is neutral on SB 640, Webb said Thursday.
The blocked sections of Act 372 would have given local elected officials the final say over whether to relocate challenged library materials some consider 'obscene' and made librarians legally liable for disseminating such materials. Webb and ArLA are among 18 plaintiffs that challenged the law.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bailey, Bongino tag team FBI leadership role
President Trump is bringing in backup at the FBI, installing a staunch legal ally in a newly created leadership post. Andrew Bailey, Missouri's attorney general, is joining the Justice Department as co-deputy director of the FBI — a position he'll hold alongside Dan Bongino, a longtime backer of the president whose role in the administration has become more tenuous as it grapples with Jeffrey Epstein fallout. As Missouri's top prosecutor, Bailey positioned himself as a warrior for conservative causes, mounting challenges to abortion rights, Big Tech, student loan forgiveness and more. Last year, he took the Biden administration to the Supreme Court over its 'vast censorship enterprise,' asserting that federal officials violated the First Amendment by urging platforms to remove posts they deemed false or misleading. The justices denied the challenge brought by Bailey by finding he did not have legal standing, leaving the First Amendment issues untouched. Bailey also came to Trump's defense as the president faced criminal prosecution. Following Trump's conviction last year on 34 counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan, the Missouri attorney general sued New York, saying the prosecution stepped on the rights of his state's voters. He asked the Supreme Court — which has exclusive jurisdiction over legal disputes between two or more states — to block Trump's sentencing and a gag order until after the 2024 election. The justices rejected the plea. 'As Missouri's Attorney General, he took on the swamp, fought weaponized government, and defended the Constitution,' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was Trump's attorney in the hush money case, said Monday of Bailey. 'Now he is bringing that fight to DOJ.' It's not the first time Trump has made Bailey couple up. Trump last year endorsed both Bailey and his primary opponent, Will Scharf, as they competed to become Missouri attorney general. Scharf was one of Trump's personal attorneys, and after losing to Bailey, he joined Trump's White House as staff secretary. You may recognize Scharf as the person who now hands Trump executive orders to sign in the Oval Office. It's not apparent how Bailey's responsibilities at the FBI will be newly split with Bongino, but the appointment of a co-deputy director seems to minimize Bongino's role. It comes amid reported tensions surrounding Bongino over the administration's handling of the Epstein files. Bongino, like dozens of right-wing internet figures, was on the front lines of conspiracy theories about Epstein, the disgraced financier who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. After the Justice Department last month issued a joint memo stating Epstein did not have a client list and confirming he died by suicide, Bongino erupted. Several news outlets reported he weighed resigning over the handling of the matter and raged at agency leaders, including Attorney General Pam Bondi. Trump told reporters last month that he still has confidence in him. Bongino's path to the FBI looked very different than Bailey's. A right-wing podcaster, Bongino was tapped as the sole deputy FBI director in February after spending years as one of the bureau's loudest critics. His career began in 1995 with the New York Police Department, and years later, he joined the U.S. Secret Service, where he eventually was placed on presidential protective duty for former Presidents George W. Bush and Obama. After leaving the Secret Service in 2011, he launched several failed political campaigns before his career as an internet provocateur took off. Despite their different paths, both Bongino and Bailey have something in common. Neither has previously worked for the FBI, breaking the tradition of selecting someone who has risen through the agency's ranks. Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill's weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Click above to email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). IN FOCUS Could TikTok kill Trump's national security legal defense? Two former Supreme Court advocates for the government warned Monday that the Trump administration's efforts to defend itself in court by pointing to national security could face an unexpected hindrance: TikTok. The Gavel joined judges and lawyers in Chicago on Monday at the annual conference for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Though Justice Amy Coney Barrett was pegged as a headliner, she spoke for less than three minutes that evening, opting to shy away from politics. The afternoon conversation between former Solicitors General Elizabeth Prelogar and Paul Clement proved more interesting. Prelogar and Clement pointed to the China-owned social media behemoth as reason Trump's legal defense might falter. In January, the Supreme Court upheld a law requiring TikTok's China-based parent company, ByteDance, to divest from the app or face a ban from U.S. app stores. The law was passed amid concerns the Chinese government could access Americans' data or manipulate the short-form video app's content algorithm to execute a covert influence operation. Clement, solicitor general during the younger Bush's second term, noted that Congress addressed the high-profile issue by pointing to the 'national security imperative to do something.' The statute was defended in part on that basis. 'But then the national security imperative, I guess, wasn't quite as imperative,' Clement said. Despite the high court's decision to let the law go into effect, the Biden administration said it would not enforce it ahead of Trump's inauguration. Trump has since kept enforcement on hold. 'I do think that that could have some long-term consequences when the administration, in subsequent cases, comes up to the Supreme Court and says, 'We really need to do something extraordinary for national security,'' Clement said. Prelogar, who was former President Biden 's solicitor general and argued the case for his administration, agreed. She called it a 'rare event' to litigate a 'seminal' Supreme Court decision to victory and see no 'real application' immediately. The president's decision to let TikTok remain operative, despite the national security risks expressed by the previous administration and Congress, could have consequences. 'Not only did the government make those arguments, but the court arguably relied on them, which could come back to haunt the government as it seeks to get the court's deference on national security issues going forward,' she said. The Trump administration has repeatedly pointed to national security as the president's sweeping agenda has faced legal challenges, namely in four Big Law firms' bids to deem illegal Trump's executive orders targeting them. Clement represents the law firm WilmerHale in its lawsuit. The conversation came amid the pair's review of the Supreme Court's major decisions this term — some argued by Prelogar herself. They spoke to a jam-packed ballroom in a hotel near Chicago's Magnificent Mile. Of the TikTok case, Prelogar said it was one of few her two sons watched closely. But when her 14-year-old son's friends asked 'which side' she would argue, he 'froze,' she joked, not willing to expose his mother's role in restricting the platform. 'There wasn't a ban,' she jokingly insisted. The Supreme Court advocates also commented on the justices' increasingly bloated emergency docket, especially now as challenges to Trump's sweeping agenda reach the high court in troves. They noted that the influx of emergency applications has not only changed the 'rhythm' of the court — but also the office of the solicitor general. 'There's a night and day difference in how the office functions,' Prelogar said. Clement suggested that his office filed only a 'couple' emergency applications during the younger Bush's presidency. Prelogar said she thinks the Trump administration has already filed as many emergency applications as she did in her four years in the office. 'And I felt like I was doing a lot,' she said. Trump pursues voting machine war as Newsmax settles Trump is returning to his war on mail-in ballots and voting machines ahead of next year's midterms, signaling plans to sign a new executive order that would ban them. 'Remember, the States are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,' Trump wrote Monday on Truth Social. 'They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.' Meeting with Ukraine's president in the Oval Office hours later, Trump doubled down on his push. The order's text remains to be seen, but if it's anything like what Trump has described, expect Democrats to challenge it. 'The President almost certainly has no authority to dictate how states conduct their elections, and his proposals run counter to the Constitution's Elections Clause,' New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D) said in a statement. Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar (D) responded similarly when we asked him for comment, noting that mail ballots are the top choice for voters in the key swing state. 'Nevada runs safe, secure elections and we will stand up against any attempts to silence the voices of our citizens,' Aguilar said in a statement. Trump's announcement came the same day that Newsmax announced it will pay voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems $67 million to settle its lawsuit over the conservative channel's 2020 election coverage. It's the latest sum for Dominion, which two years ago secured an eye-popping $787-million settlement from Fox News over its coverage. The president has long declared war on mail ballots and voting machines, asserting unfounded accusations that they sparked widespread voter fraud in his 2020 loss. More than four years later, Trump has continued to press the issue in his second term, supported by allies like MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. In an interview with The Gavel last month, Lindell was bullish about getting rid of voting machines. 'Mike wants to melt down the electronic voting machines and turn them into prison bars. That's what Mike wants, and that's what Mike's going to end up getting, is these machines will be gone,' Lindell told us. He was spotted at the White House the next day. Trump's forthcoming order appears to be the president's latest front on voting ahead of next year's midterms, when Republicans hope to maintain their control of both chambers of Congress. The president signed an executive order in March that asserts greater presidential control over elections and seeks to institute strengthened proof-of-citizenship requirements. That order has come under five lawsuits, and judges have halted portions of Trump's directive as the litigation proceeds. And in recent weeks, Trump has pushed Texas Republicans to commence a redistricting effort that would add several Republican-leaning seats. NFL will inch coach lawsuits closer to SCOTUS The NFL is inching two major lawsuits brought by coaches closer to the Supreme Court. Both involve whether the league can force the disputes into arbitration, which would keep the coaches' legal claims away from a jury and public view. Last week, the NFL's efforts fell flat in two separate courts, which ruled the coaches are entitled to pursue their claims before a jury. But the league isn't giving up. It plans to ask both courts to rehear the appeals, The Gavel has learned. And if that fails? The next step would be the Supreme Court. The NFL's first loss came when the Nevada Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the league's arbitration clause doesn't apply to former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden 's lawsuit. It reverses a panel decision that sided with the NFL. Gruden resigned in 2021 after The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal uncovered emails he wrote while working for ESPN that used racist, misogynistic and homophobic language. The NFL had found the emails during a sexual harassment investigation into the Washington Football Team (now the Commanders). Gruden's lawsuit claims the NFL engaged in a 'malicious and orchestrated campaign' to force his resignation, and he seeks the remainder of his 10-year, $100 million coaching contract. Nevada's high court ruled that Gruden is not bound by the NFL's forced arbitration provision since he is no longer an employee. Chief NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy told The Gavel, 'We will be appealing the decision.' The NFL was handed another loss Thursday, when a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Brian Flores and other Black coaches' discrimination claims against the NFL and three teams — the Denver Broncos, Houston Texans and New York Giants — can proceed before a jury. Th 2nd Circuit took issue with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell 's power under the league's rules to serve as arbitrator. The panel found the Federal Arbitration Act, a century-old law that enables parties to enforce arbitration agreements, doesn't apply because Goodell's role makes it 'arbitration in name only.' 'Accordingly, the agreement betrays the norm of bilateral dispute resolution,' the panel ruled. Though the disputes aren't heading to the Supreme Court quite yet, the NFL is already involved in one case pending before the justices. The NFL filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing the NBA in its bid to end a lawsuit filed by one of its online newsletter subscribers who claims the NBA violated federal law by disclosing his data. The justices will consider taking up the case at their first closed-door conference of the upcoming term, court records show. SIDEBAR 5 top docket updates Bondi walks back MPD memo: Bondi on Friday walked back her push to install an administration official as the emergency commissioner of the District of Columbia's police department under pressure from a federal judge. CFPB dismantling can resume: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday lifted an injunction that had long blocked the administration's efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The new ruling is on hold for one week. O'Rourke fundraising block expanded: A Texas state judge on Friday expanded his order limiting former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) and his political group from funding state Democratic lawmakers who fled the state to block a redistricting push. Alligator Alcatraz suit narrowed: A federal judge Monday partially dismissed Alligator Alcatraz detainees' lawsuit that raises concerns about attorney access. Some of the migrants' constitutional claims are proceeding, but the judge said they must be transferred to a different judicial district. Dem states sue over crime victim funds: Democratic attorneys general from D.C. and 20 states sued Monday over the administration's bid to condition federal funding for crime victims on cooperation with immigration enforcement. In other news Oops: A Fulton County, Ga., Superior Court judge accidentally relayed a 'not guilty' verdict as 'guilty.' He apologized for the 'mispronunciation.' Watch it here. Bye bye, Big Apple: Ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 's penthouse in the Upper East Side has sold for $4.95 million, a significantly discounted price. The property was nearly seized by two ex-Georgia election workers who won a $146 million defamation judgment against him, but he was allowed to keep it as part of a settlement reached earlier this year. ON THE DOCKET Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: Today: A federal judge in South Carolina is set to hold a motions hearing in a man's defamation lawsuit against Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) over a House floor speech in which she accused him of being a predator. The judge will hear arguments over whether to dismiss the case, allow discovery and other matters. A federal judge in Rhode Island is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit brought by Democratic states over the Trump administration's extension of a law's requirements for states to verify a person's legal status before allowing them to access certain federal programs, including Medicaid. Thursday: A federal judge in Georgia is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a campaign finance case involving gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov. Burt Jones and Chris Carr, the state's attorney general. A federal appeals court panel in San Francisco will hear arguments on the Trump administration's bid to overturn a judge's order requiring various agencies to turn over documents they used to plan mass layoffs. Friday: No notable hearings scheduled. Monday: A federal judge in Washington, D.C., will hold a hearing to assess the Trump administration's efforts to comply with his order to restore Voice of America 's operations. Tuesday: A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a hearing on new developments in a lawsuit challenging the Department of Government Efficiency's cost-cutting efforts at the Department of the Interior and environmental agencies. WHAT WE'RE READING Abigail Adcox, Amanda O'Brien and Christine Simmons: In Trump's Battle With Big Law, Has Leverage Shifted?
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas House to take up GOP congressional map delayed by Democrats' walkout
The Republican-led Texas House on Wednesday was set to advance a new congressional map crafted to hand five additional U.S. House seats to the GOP over fierce opposition from Democrats, who cast the plan as an attempt by President Donald Trump to stack the deck in next year's midterm election. Republican lawmakers are pursuing the unusual mid-decade redistricting plan, which has set off a national map-drawing war, amid pressure from Trump to protect the GOP's slim majority in Congress. The effort comes just four years after the Legislature last overhauled the state's congressional map following the 2020 Census. Democrats in the Texas House staged a two-week walkout over the plan in a bid to stall the map's passage and rally a national response among blue states, where lawmakers could launch their own retaliatory redistricting efforts. The roughly two dozen Texas Democrats who returned to Austin on Monday said they were starting the next phase of their fight: putting the screws on their Republican colleagues and establishing a record that could be used in a legal challenge to the map. Republicans have said the new districts were drawn purely to maximize their partisan advantage, arguing that the GOP's margins of victory in 2024 supported new lines that entrenched their hold on power. They have also framed the effort as a response to Democratic gerrymandering elsewhere. 'In the context of balancing what Democratic states have already done, what Texas is doing is eminently fair,' Rep. Cody Vasut, R-Angleton and chair of the House's redistricting committee, said this month. 'This is about making sure that when we go into the congressional election in [2026], Republicans are on a level playing field to be able to compete with Democrats.' To create up to five Republican pickup opportunities, the map dismantles Democratic strongholds around Austin, Dallas and Houston and makes Democrat-held seats in South Texas redder — all without seriously jeopardizing any of the 25 districts Republicans already control. 'I'm not beating around the bush,' Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi and the map's bill sponsor, said during an Aug. 1 committee hearing. 'We have five new districts, and these five new districts are based on political performance.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that states can draw electoral maps on partisan grounds. But under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the map cannot diminish the voting power of people of color. Democrats have condemned the plan, arguing it widens Republicans' partisan edge by unconstitutionally packing people of color — who are driving almost all of Texas' population growth — into some districts while spreading them throughout others to reduce their ability to elect their preferred candidates. 'These illegal maps are based on already racist and unconstitutional maps that were litigated just barely a month ago,' Rep. Gene Wu of Houston, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said Monday, referring to an ongoing legal challenge to Texas' current map. 'It can only get worse from there. This is probably — from the experts that we've talked to — the worst racial discrimination in redistricting since the Jim Crow era.' The proposed map also would push a handful of Democratic members of Congress into seats already represented by other Democrats, setting up possible primary battles between long-serving members of the Texas delegation and younger newcomers. More all-star speakers confirmed for The Texas Tribune Festival, Nov. 13–15! This year's lineup just got even more exciting with the addition of State Rep. Caroline Fairly, R-Amarillo; former United States Attorney General Eric Holder; Abby Phillip, anchor of 'CNN NewsNight'; Aaron Reitz, 2026 Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General; and State Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin. Get your tickets today! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Top House Republican could shake up major border state gubernatorial race
Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., is considering jumping into the race for Arizona's next governor, Fox News can independently confirm. Rep. Andy Biggs and businesswoman Karrin Taylor Robson are already in the race, and whoever wins the Republican primary will presumably face off against Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat elected in 2022 in a competitive race against Republican Kari Lake. "Congressman Schweikert has been approached by several prominent Arizona conservatives and Republicans who want to defeat Democrat Katie Hobbs and are concerned that the current field of candidates does not have a candidate who can beat her. The Congressman agrees with that analysis and is considering a run for Governor. He will make a decision by the end of the month," Chris Baker, a spokesperson for Schweikert, said in a statement. Robson previously sought the Republican nomination in 2022. Trump's Endorsement Boosts Senate Candidate Who Almost Flipped A Key Swing Seat "Karrin is proud to have President Trump's endorsement. She has held more than 100 events this summer and earned support from over 8,000 donors in just the first six months of her campaign. She is the candidate Democrats fear most, the clear frontrunner in this race, and she welcomes anyone who wants to run for the GOP nomination—for second place," the Robson campaign said in a statement. Read On The Fox News App Both Biggs and Robson have been endorsed by President Donald Trump. "I like Karrin Taylor Robson of Arizona a lot, and when she asked me to Endorse her, with nobody else running, I Endorsed her, and was happy to do so," Trump posted to Truth Social in April. Hochul Fails To Crack 50% But Tops Potential Gop Challenges By Double Digits In Ny Governor Race: Poll "When Andy Biggs decided to run for Governor, quite unexpectedly, I had a problem — Two fantastic candidates, two terrific people, two wonderful champions, and it is therefore my Great Honor TO GIVE MY COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENDORSEMENT TO BOTH. Either one will never let you down. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" he continued. Biggs represents a deep-red seat east of Phoenix, which opened up a Republican primary battle in that district. If Schweikert runs, it will create another closely-watched Republican primary in Arizona's First Congressional District, which is often considered one of the most competitive seats in the nation. Could This Top Trump Ally Break Republican's 2-Decade Losing Streak In This Key State? Cook Political Report ranks both the gubernatorial race and the congressional race as toss-ups. "The Arizona GOP primary for governor is already an extreme and expensive mess — and David Schweikert considering running is the latest sign the chaos and infighting is just starting. If he does run, the reality is Schweikert, Andy Biggs and Karrin Taylor Robson all share the same harmful and unpopular agenda of ripping health care away and supporting job-killing tariffs that are hiking taxes and costing small businesses a fortune," DGA Communications Director Sam Newton said in a statement. "In contrast, Governor Hobbs is in a strong position because she has worked with both parties to make life safer and more affordable for Arizonans, including securing the border, tackling drug smuggling and human trafficking, raising pay for first responders, and eliminating the tax on rent — all while repealing the state's 1864 near-total abortion ban. That's the type of strong and steady leadership Arizonans will want to stick with, no matter who survives the GOP's clown car primary."Original article source: Top House Republican could shake up major border state gubernatorial race
