Tarrant County moves ahead with plans to redraw districts amid criticism and controversy
Tarrant County Commissioners are moving forward with plans to redraw precinct boundaries, a process typically reserved for after the release of new census data.
The move is drawing criticism from residents and elected leaders alike.
"It's unfair," said B.C. Cornish, who lives in Tarrant County Precinct 4. "It's just crazy."
The county's Republican-majority Commissioners Court is considering five proposed maps presented earlier this month by a conservative law firm hired to assist with the redistricting effort.
A vote is expected June 3.
Who would the potential changes impact?
The potential changes would significantly impact Precincts 1 and 2, which are currently represented by Democrats.
"Tarrant County is a majority-minority county with a Commissioners Court that fairly reflects both the racial makeup and the politics of the county," said Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons, who currently represents Precinct 2 and does not support redistricting.
It has been 15 years since the boundary lines were redrawn.
In 2021, the then-Republican-led court chose not to alter precinct lines, determining they were balanced based on the most recent census data. It's unusual for the process to be done mid-decade.
"We're using the same 2020 numbers to redistrict in 2025," Simmons said. "Just doesn't make sense."
Redistricting expert hired in Arlington
Arlington Mayor Jim Ross has hired a redistricting expert to weigh in on the legality of the process, saying he's skeptical any time someone wants to redistrict outside the typical census period.
"I'm not opposed to redistricting, but I don't want anyone to be doing something purely for political reasons," Mayor Ross said. "If it needs to happen, it needs to be pursuant to the law and transparent to the community."
If the report comes back with concerns, the mayor said he intends to push a resolution to the city council opposing the redistricting. He has talked to a number of other mayors in Tarrant County and plans to share the report with them as well.
"I'm glad the city of Arlington is paying attention," Simmons said.
So are Tarrant County residents.
Tarrant County residents speak out against redistricting at Commissioners Court meeting
At the May 6 Commissioners Court meeting, all of the more than 20 people who spoke during public comment voiced opposition to redistricting.
On Monday night in Azle, Cornish attended the first of four public meetings scheduled this month to gather community feedback.
"There were 30 about 35 people who spoke," she said. "Only three of those were in favor of redistricting. All of the others spoke against it for various reasons. Three identified themselves as Republicans, and they also thought it was a bad idea, primarily because it's expensive and it's divisive."
Cornish and others who attended said they were frustrated the Precinct 4 Commissioner was not present.
"There was not a public official — not one — that I could see who was there to listen or to answer questions," she said. "And nobody from this law firm was there to answer questions. So I don't know how they can call that a public hearing. That was a farce."
Tracey Knight, the chief of staff for Ramirez, said he was in Washington, D.C., to honor the sacrifice of a Fort Worth police officer killed in the line of duty.
Tarrant County Republicans in support political redistricting
"Commissioner Ramirez has also been very transparent regarding the redistricting process, having released a public statement on April 1st," Knight wrote in a statement. "He remains supportive of political redistricting and committed to keeping Tarrant County safe and prosperous through conservative policy and governance."
Republican Tim O'Hare is spearheading the redistricting process. He was not available for an interview with CBS News Texas on Tuesday.
The chairman of the Tarrant County GOP, Bo French, sent this statement on the effort to redraw current boundary lines:
"My promise to my constituents is to make Tarrant County more red. There is a lot that goes into that, but one important step is to redraw the Commissioner Precinct lines. It has been a couple decades since they were redrawn, and Tarrant County has almost doubled in population. The current Commissioner Court representation does not align with the other partisan elected officials in the county. Redrawing the lines based on Map 1 will bring the Commissioner Court in line with the other elected officials. We want Tarrant to remain as red as possible and this is an important step in that goal."
Lawmakers and residents criticize lack of transparency and political motives
Some residents argue the redistricting is politically motivated and unnecessary.
"Five proposed maps were made public, but all racial information on the maps is being withheld," said Fort Worth resident Constance Richardson. "No provision in Texas state law authorizes the county to redraw commissioner precinct boundaries mid-decade. This will cost the taxpayers potentially millions of dollars in litigation."
Simmons also believes the proposed maps pose a threat to minority voting rights.
"You're attempting to conduct a redistricting process in 2025. But you're still using the 2020 census data," she said. "There's no logic to it other than to surgically remove minority communities and neighborhoods from commissioner districts like mine, Precinct 2, and to move black and brown voters into one precinct so that their voices in this section of the county are silenced. They're marginalized. "So it's for the sole purpose of destroying voter strength."
At the community meeting planned in her district, Simmons said she will be present and will have a panel of redistricting experts to explain the process and answer questions.
Upcoming Community Meetings:
Fort Worth: May 14, 6 p.m.
Como Community Center, 4660 Horne St.
May 14, 6 p.m. Como Community Center, 4660 Horne St. Arlington: May 17, 10 a.m.
Arlington Subcourthouse, 700 E. Abram St.
May 17, 10 a.m. Arlington Subcourthouse, 700 E. Abram St. Hurst: May 21, 6 p.m.
Gary Fickes Northeast Courthouse, 645 Grapevine Hwy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
8 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Budget Drops Protections For State Medical Cannabis Programs
The White House budget request for 2026 omits language that has protected state-regulated medical ... More cannabis operators from federal prosecution for more than decade. The Trump administration's budget request for the 2026 fiscal year drops provisions that have protected state medical cannabis programs for more than a decade, online cannabis news outlet Marijuana Moment reported on Monday. The budget provision has blocked federal law enforcement agencies from spending resources to investigate or prosecute businesses operating in compliance with state-authorized medical cannabis programs, despite the continued prohibition of marijuana under federal law. 'This provision, which has been in place since 2014, protects patients, caregivers, and medical cannabis providers in the 39 states that have legalized medical access from federal interference or criminal prosecution,' the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) wrote in a statement. 'Prior to the passage of this protection, federal prosecutors routinely took actions against patients and dispensaries in legal states.' The budget restriction was first adopted by Congress in 2014 and has been included in the federal budget every year since. But the Trump administration's budget request for the 2026 fiscal year released last week does not include the language. Similarly, the budget requests for each of the four years of President Donald Trump's first term omitted the protections for state-regulated medical cannabis operators. The administration of President Barack Obama also left the language prohibiting federal interference with regulated medical marijuana businesses out its budget requests following the initial adoption of the provisions. By contrast, the administration budget requests for all fours years of Joseph Biden's presidency included the protections for state-legal medical marijuana businesses. While the budget request illustrates the Trump administration's spending policies and priorities, Congress has the constitutional responsibility and authority for appropriations legislation. The congressional budget has included the language every year since 2014, despite attempts by both Democratic and Republican administrations to drop the provision. 'Today, more than half the country, including 36 states and Washington, D.C., have embraced medical marijuana, and for the past 10 years, the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment has prevented the Department of Justice from using federal funds to stop states from implementing their medical marijuana programs,' Laura A. Bianchi, co-founding partner of the cannabis and psychedelics law firm Bianchi and Brandt, writes in an email. 'Rolling back these protections would mark a significant setback for marijuana reform. Ultimately, Congress will have the final say, and the industry remains hopeful that they will uphold these vital safeguards.' When Trump signed previous appropriations bill including the protections for medical cannabis operators after requesting they be removed, his administration issued a statement that it 'will treat this provision consistent with the President's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.' The statement, which was issued on three separate occasions, was widely interpreted to suggest that the Trump administration might ignore the budget restriction. The omission of the protections for state-legal medical cannabis programs in the Trump administration's 2026 budget request is likely to disappoint supporters of cannabis policy reform who were encouraged by the president's apparent support for decriminalizing marijuana during the 2024 election campaign. In September, Trump suggested he supported reclassifying marijuana under federal drug laws and that he would back state efforts to legalize recreational cannabis. 'As President, we will continue to focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug, and work with Congress to pass common sense laws, including safe banking for state authorized companies, and supporting states rights to pass marijuana laws, like in Florida, that work so well for their citizens,' Trump wrote on Truth Social, according to a report from Marijuana Moment.
Washington Post
13 minutes ago
- Washington Post
This popular gunmaker persuaded N.H. lawmakers to protect it from lawsuits
A new law will shield the gunmaker Sig Sauer from being sued in its home state of New Hampshire by people who allege its pistol design is defective and has caused them injury — a victory that demonstrates the power of the firearms lobby in the face of high-profile lawsuits and calls for greater accountability. The firearms manufacturer, which is based in Newington, faces dozens of lawsuits from gun owners across the country who say their Sig Sauer P320 pistols fired without anyone pulling the trigger. The manufacturer has been sued at least 77 times in New Hampshire, according to the company, as well as in other states. A Sig Sauer lobbyist, at a New Hampshire legislature hearing in April, asked lawmakers for help to stem the lawsuits. The company has argued that the complaints were without merit and that fighting them was draining money from one of the state's largest manufacturers — which could, by extension, hurt local jobs. Weeks later, New Hampshire lawmakers granted firearms manufacturers protections in 'any product liability action' in the state from specific defect and negligence claims rising from a gun's lack of an external mechanical safety — in an amendment to a broader firearms bill that was swiftly passed and then signed by Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) on May 23. The governor, who did not publicly comment upon the bill signing, did not respond to a request from The Washington Post. Many lawsuits against gun manufacturers are brought in federal, rather than state, courts, and one state lawmaker who is critical of the bill said he doubts the New Hampshire legislature has the power to limit federal lawsuits. But Republican state Rep. John Sellers, a co-sponsor of the bill, said it was necessary because the number of lawsuits against Sig Sauer was becoming unreasonable. 'We're trying to protect them because they're a major employer — not just Sig Sauer, but Ruger, too,' Sellers told The Washington Post, noting that Connecticut-based firearms manufacturer Ruger also operates a large facility in New Hampshire. 'We don't want to have so many lawsuits that it kills the corporation and makes it go bankrupt.' Sig Sauer did not respond to requests for comment. In 2023, The Washington Post and The Trace found that at least 80 people, including police officers, had alleged that they had been shot by their Sig Sauer P320 pistols. Many who filed lawsuits against Sig Sauer said the guns fired without having their triggers pulled, often while holstered, sending bullets into their legs, hips or groins without warning. Last year, Sig Sauer was found liable in two cases, in Pennsylvania and Georgia, in which juries awarded the plaintiffs millions. The New Hampshire provision doesn't affect the P320 cases underway in courts there, but it will limit future cases in New Hampshire against Sig Sauer by state residents — and others trying to sue there. Out-of-state residents have filed suit against Sig Sauer in New Hampshire because it is more efficient; existing rulings in the state on the P320 issue mean a plaintiff could get their case before a jury faster, according to Bob Zimmerman, a lawyer who has represented more than 70 plaintiffs in lawsuits over the issue. New Hampshire Democrats, who are the minority in both chambers, roundly decried the provision as an example of Republican lawmakers putting corporate interests over residents. New Hampshire Senate Minority Leader Rebecca Perkins Kwoka said in a statement that shielding Sig Sauer from certain lawsuits in the P320 mechanical safety issue 'could, and should, be seen as legislative malpractice.' 'No company should be immune from liability when their product is defective — especially when it comes to the issue of gun safety,' she said. 'It is our job as legislators to put forth legislation that serves to protect our citizens and support our public safety workers — rather than shield billion-dollar corporations.' During the May 22 House vote on the bill, Democratic state Rep. David Meuse said, 'I'm not here today to try to litigate whether this particular weapon is safe. What I am here to try to do is stop us from passing a bill that will prevent gun owners who believe they have been harmed by a defective, unmodified product from having their day in court — which is exactly what this bill will do.' The provision's success is striking because it disadvantages New Hampshire residents for the benefit of a local company, said David Pucino, the legal director and deputy chief counsel for gun safety research and advocacy group Giffords. '[The law] doesn't protect Sig Sauer around the country in the dozens and dozens of cases where owners have been injured,' Pucino said. 'It just injures the people in New Hampshire.' Bobby Cox, vice president of government affairs at Sig Sauer and a Republican member of the South Carolina legislature, told New Hampshire lawmakers at the April Senate Judiciary hearing that the pistol's design is not defective. 'All these cases that we've seen with these guns, the gun has never been defective,' Cox alleged. 'It's been user error; it's been equipment associated with the gun.' Cox added that the lawsuits were 'becoming detrimental' to the company and portrayed them as 'out-of-state plaintiffs' attorneys … attacking in-state business.' Plaintiffs in cases against Sig Sauer have argued that the lack of a mechanical safety on the P320 is a manufacturing defect that has caused a known issue of unintentional discharges. The company has argued in court that the unintentional discharges were user error — and said the absence of a mechanical safety is a design choice that consumers can avoid by buying a firearm design with the features they want. Not everyone has a choice to carry a different weapon if they don't trust the design of the P320, said Zimmerman, the attorney. 'The majority of our clients are law enforcement. They are not, generally speaking, permitted to choose their service weapon; it's issued by the department.' 'It can be argued that other claimants can go to their home states and argue there, but residents in New Hampshire — law enforcement officers in New Hampshire — they don't have another option,' Zimmerman said. Firearm manufacturers have lobbied for protections from liability for years, and 32 states offer some form of immunity, according to Giffords. More recently, efforts led by Democrats in several states have sought to counter such efforts with legislation clearing the way for plaintiffs to bring civil lawsuits against gun industry entities. Since 2022, nine states have enacted such laws, according to Giffords. Rep. Albert 'Buzz' Scherr, a retired law professor and Democrat in the New Hampshire State House who opposed the bill, said he expects debates over the law's scope if a plaintiff tries to file a related case in New Hampshire federal court. The bill's language was 'abundantly unclear,' he said, and 'needs to be tested out and determined how broad the ban is, in case law,' he said. 'Can [the state legislature] limit anyone to accessing federal court? I don't think the state legislature has that power,' Scherr said. At the same time, he said, the Republican majority in both chambers likely feels emboldened to try to 'control anything having to do with guns, be it state or federal law.'
16 minutes ago
Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania would see funding cut under bill passed by the state House
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A Democratic-sponsored proposal to limit per-student payments to Pennsylvania's cyber charter schools and make other changes to how they operate narrowly passed the state House on Wednesday over Republican objections that it would imperil the online learning programs. The 104-98 vote, with only two Republicans in favor, sets down a marker on the perennially contentious issue of school funding as state lawmakers work to complete the coming year's state budget for the fiscal year that starts in July. The bill's $8,000 limit on how much public school districts would have to reimburse the cyber charters was the central piece of the sprawling legislation and would be a boost to the districts and the property tax payers who bear much of the cost of public education in Pennsylvania. There currently is no cap for the districts' payments to cyber charters, an amount now linked to how much districts spent on their own students in the prior year. Supporters said changes to the cyber charter rules are widely backed among the state's 500 school boards and that cyber school spending has been the subject of critical reviews, including recently by Republican Auditor General Tim DeFoor. But opponents defended the existing system as a critical lifeline to the students and families that for various reasons have sought alternatives to traditional schools. The bill would set annual tuition payments from school districts to cyber charters at $8,000 per student, with potential yearly increases. Special education funding would also see changes. Cyber charters would not be able to maintain cash balances above 12% of their spending and would not be able to provide payments or gifts to parents as incentives to enroll their children. The bill would bolster disclosure requirements regarding cyber charters' policies, instructional materials and budgets. It would bar the state Education Department from approving any additional cyber charter schools through the 2029-30 school year. A new Cyber Charter School Funding and Policy Council would be set up to make recommendations concerning enrollment, governance and funding. During floor debate Wednesday, Rep. Martina White, a Philadelphia Republican, said the measure will 'close real schools, displace real students, strip families of the very choices that they depend on to give their children a chance at success.' The moratorium would be highly damaging to cyber charters, said Rep. Craig Williams, a Delaware County Republican. 'You limit the number of cyber charters now in existence, you choke off its funding, and eventually you can kill cyber charter. Sixty-plus thousand students in our school system, finding another way to learn, and we're going to choke it off with this bill,' Williams said. The chair of the House Education Committee, Lehigh County Democratic Rep. Peter Schweyer, enumerated cyber charter spending issues raised in the auditor general's report, including staff bonuses, gift cards, vehicle payments and fuel stipends. 'Gift cards?' Schweyer asked his colleagues. 'We would all get in trouble if we were taking gift cards as part of our compensation.' Leaders of existing public cyber charter schools say the measure would cut their funding by about $450 million or more across the state, with a third of the total reductions targeting special education student reimbursements. A Democratic analysis put the figure at more than $600 million. About 65,000 Pennsylvania students currently attend the state's 14 public cyber charter schools, which are public, nonprofit corporations. They do not have to follow all of the requirements mandated of public schools under state law. Cyber charter school are considered independent public schools, approved to operate with a 'charter' issued by the Education Department. They use technology to provide much of the teaching. Students usually do not need to attend a physical location beyond certain events, such as standardized testing. The proposal was sent over to the Republican majority state Senate for its consideration. The bill becomes part of a wider negotiations to determine the budget before lawmakers recess for the summer.
