Democrats cry foul as Republicans push to redraw Texas electoral maps to gain US House seats
Democrats in the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature delayed the start of public testimony during a hearing of a state House Committee on Redistricting by peppering its chair with pointed questions about how quickly GOP lawmakers planned to move and whether the public is getting enough of an opportunity to weigh in. The Republican proposal would give the GOP five more winnable seats in next year's elections, which would make it easier for the party to keep its slim U.S. House majority.
Chair Cody Vasut told the committee that he expected it to vote later Friday or Saturday on the bill, which Republicans unveiled Wednesday. He said he expected the full state House to debate the measure Tuesday.
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott called the Legislature into a 30-day special session and put congressional redistricting on the agenda after Trump called for Texas to redraw lines that Republicans approved in 2021. Republicans hold 25 of the state's seats, to 13 for Democrats, and the plan would create 30 districts that Trump would have carried by at least 10 percentage points had they been in place in 2024.
Democratic state Rep. Jon Rosenthal called the public redistricting hearings 'a sham.' The committee quietly released the plan after several public hearings that drew hours of public testimony and scrutiny from residents concerned about new maps they hadn't seen.
'Does the leadership of the state truly think the people of Texas are that stupid?' Rosenthal asked, to which Vasut did not reply.
Democrats appear to have few ways to stop the GOP's plans. Some have talked about boycotting the special session to prevent either chamber or both from having a quorum to take action until the special session ends. But Abbott could call another.
Republican state Rep. Todd Hunter, the bill's author, dismissed concerns about how quickly lawmakers are moving. He said they've have been discussing the possibility for months.
'Don't be surprised,' he said. 'The topic has been there.'
Hunter acknowledged that the lines were being redrawn 'for partisan purposes,' which he said is allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court. He said a law firm was consulted as the map was being drawn.
'I'm telling you,' he said. 'I'm not beating around the bush.'
Democrats argue that if Republicans succeed in redrawing the districts in Texas, Trump will push other states to redraw theirs before they'd normally do so, which would be in 2031 or 2032, after the next nationwide census. States are required to adjust the lines at least once every 10 years to keep the districts as equal in population as possible after population shifts.
That's led Democrats in California and New York to consider redrawing their states' lines to help Democrats, though each state has an independent commission for drawing the lines.
Texas might have no competitive districts
Under the exiting lines, which were in place for the 2022 and 2024 elections, Republicans won all of the seats in districts carried by Trump by at least 10 percentage points, and Democrats won all 11 districts carried by Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. In the other two districts, Trump won by less than 10 percentage points, but Democrats won the House seats. Under the new map, there would be no districts won by Trump by less than 10 points.
In Austin, a liberal bastion, parts of two districts represented by Democrats would be combined into one that favored Democrats even more strongly. One of the three other districts would include a slice of the city and extend 340 miles (547 kilometers) to the west, to take in the oil city of Midland.
'Some people like it, and some people don't, and that's the nature of redistricting," Hunter said.
___
Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
a few seconds ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's politically motivated sanctions against Brazil strain relations among old allies
Advertisement The message was clear earlier, when Trump described Bolsonaro's prosecution by Brazil's Supreme Court as a 'witch hunt' — using the same phrase he has employed for the numerous investigations he has faced since his first term. Bolsonaro faces charges of orchestrating a coup attempt to stay in power after losing the 2022 election to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. A conviction could come in the next few months. The U.S. has a long history of meddling with the affairs of Latin American governments, but Trump's latest moves are unprecedented, said Steven Levitsky, a political scientist at Harvard University. 'This is a personalistic government that is adopting policies according to Trump's whims,' Levitsky said. Bolsonaro's sons, he noted, have close connections to Trump's inner circle. The argument has been bolstered by parallels between Bolsonaro's prosecution and the attempted prosecution of Trump for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, which ended when he won his second term last November. Advertisement 'He's been convinced Bolsonaro is a kindred spirit suffering a similar witch hunt,' Levitsky said. Brazil's institutions hold firm against political pressure After Bolsonaro's defeat in 2022, Trump and his supporters echoed his baseless election fraud claims, treating him as a conservative icon and hosting him at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Steve Bannon, the former Trump adviser, recently told Brazil's news website UOL that the U.S. would lift tariffs if Bolsonaro's prosecution were dropped. Meeting that demand, however, is impossible for several reasons. Brazilian officials have consistently emphasized that the judiciary is independent. The executive branch, which manages foreign relations, has no control over Supreme Court justices, who in turn have stated they won't yield to political pressure. On Monday, the court ordered that Bolsonaro be placed under house arrest for violating court orders by spreading messages on social media through his sons' accounts. Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case against Bolsonaro, was sanctioned under the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which is supposed to target serious human rights offenders. De Moraes has argued that defendants were granted full due process and said he would ignore the sanctions and continue his work. 'The ask for Lula was undoable,' said Bruna Santos of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, D.C., about dropping the charges against Bolsonaro. 'In the long run, you are leaving a scar on the relationship between the two largest democracies in the hemisphere.' Magnitsky sanctions 'twist the law' Three key factors explain the souring of U.S.-Brazil ties in recent months, said Oliver Stuenkel, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: growing alignment between the far-right in both countries; Brazil's refusal to cave to tariff threats; and the country's lack of lobbying in Washington. Advertisement Lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro, Jair Bolsonaro's third son, has been a central figure linking Brazil's far-right with Trump's MAGA movement. He took a leave from Brazil's Congress and moved to the U.S. in March, but he has long cultivated ties in Trump's orbit. Eduardo openly called for Magnitsky sanctions against de Moraes and publicly thanked Trump after the 50% tariffs were announced in early July. Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, author of the Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. to sanction individual foreign officials who violate human rights, called the administration's actions 'horrible.' 'They make things up to protect someone who says nice things about Donald Trump,' McGovern told The Associated Press. Bolsonaro's son helps connect far right in US and Brazil Eduardo Bolsonaro's international campaign began immediately after his father's 2022 loss. Just days after the elections, he met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. As investigations against Bolsonaro and his allies deepened, the Brazilian far right adopted a narrative of judicial persecution and censorship, an echo of Trump and his allies who have claimed the U.S. justice system was weaponized against him. Brazil's Supreme Court and Electoral Court are among the world's strictest regulators of online discourse: they can order social media takedowns and arrests for spreading misinformation or other content it rules 'anti-democratic.' But until recently, few believed Eduardo's efforts to punish Brazil's justices would succeed. That began to change last year when billionaire Elon Musk clashed with de Moraes over censorship on X and threatened to defy court orders by pulling its legal representative from Brazil. In response, de Moraes suspended the social media platform from operating in the country for a month and threatened operations of another Musk company, Starlink. In the end, Musk blinked. Advertisement Fábio de Sá e Silva, a professor of international and Brazilian studies at the University of Oklahoma, said Eduardo's influence became evident in May 2024, when he and other right-wing allies secured a hearing before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. 'It revealed clear coordination between Bolsonaro supporters and sectors of the U.S. Republican Party,' he said. 'It's a strategy to pressure Brazilian democracy from the outside.' A last-minute tariff push yields some wins Brazil has a diplomatic tradition of maintaining a low-key presence in Washington, Stuenkel said. That vacuum created an opportunity for Eduardo Bolsonaro to promote a distorted narrative about Brazil among Republicans and those closest to Trump. 'Now Brazil is paying the price,' he said. After Trump announced sweeping tariffs in April, Brazil began negotiations. President Lula and Vice President Geraldo Alckmin — Brazil's lead trade negotiator — said they have held numerous meetings with U.S. trade officials since then. Lula and Trump have never spoken, and the Brazilian president has repeatedly said Washington ignored Brazil's efforts to negotiate ahead of the tariffs' implementation. Privately, diplomats say they felt the decisions were made inside the White House, within Trump's inner circle — a group they had no access to. A delegation of Brazilian senators traveled to Washington in the final week of July in a last-ditch effort to defuse tensions. The group, led by Senator Nelsinho Trad, met with business leaders with ties to Brazil and nine U.S. senators — only one of them Republican, Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Advertisement 'We found views on Brazil were ideologically charged,' Trad told The AP. 'But we made an effort to present economic arguments.' While the delegation was in Washington, Trump signed the order imposing the 50% tariff. But there was relief: not all Brazilian imports would be hit. Exemptions included civil aircraft and parts, aluminum, tin, wood pulp, energy products and fertilizers. Trad believes Brazil's outreach may have helped soften the final terms. 'I think the path has to remain one of dialogue and reason so we can make progress on other fronts,' he said. Associated Press writer Mauricio Savarese in Sao Paulo contributed to this report.
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Toppled Confederate statue returning to DC
A toppled statue dedicated to the memory of Confederate officer Albert Pike will soon be reinstalled in Washington, D.C., according to the Department of Interior. The statue will be back in Judiciary Square by October, according to The Washington Post, who first reported the move. It comes a year ahead of the nation's 250th founding anniversary, a milestone President Trump has pledged to mark with tributes to American history in Washington through his ' Making the District of Columbia Beautiful ' executive order. In the order, Trump says 'monuments, museums, and buildings should reflect and inspire awe and appreciation for our Nation's strength, greatness, and heritage.' Pike's contributions to the country's history fit the mold. 'This project reflects our commitment to the responsible stewardship of public lands and the preservation of our nation's cultural resources,' a spokesperson for the Department said in a Tuesday statement to The Hill. But in 2020, demonstrators removed the sculpture by hand in following the death of George Floyd at the hands of police officers. Pike's 27-foot-tall bronze and marble statue was erected more than a century ago, in 1901. The measure was aimed at paying homage to his history as a brigadier general in the Confederate army and prominent figure in Scottish Rite Freemasonry. He was also a member of the Know Nothing Party, known for its strong anti-immigration stance. As the Trump administration lauds the statue's reinstallment, local leaders remain in favor of keeping Pike out of street view. 'I've long believed Confederate statues should be placed in museums as historical artifacts, not remain in locations that imply honor. A statue honoring a racist and a traitor has no place on the streets of D.C.,' Congresswoman Eleanor Norton Holmes (D-D.C.) said in a statement to The Post. The D.C. Scottish Rite also said in 2017 the statue had become 'the subject of contention and escalating controversy' and that the group would agree to its removal, per the outlet.
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
On The Matter Of So-Called ‘Debanking,' Follow The Regulators
It turns out Republicans buy beer, which is something basketball and brand great Michael Jordan could have told the executives at AB InBev ahead of any influencer agreement with Dylan Mulvaney. In a politically divided country, it's best to keep business out of politics. Banks arguably know this more intimately than any other business sector. Precisely because they're asking individuals to entrust their savings to them, politics and talk of same is the path to losing some of the most hard-won business of all. It's important to think about in consideration of President Trump's assertion on CNBC that 'The banks discriminated against me very badly.' Trump was talking about J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America, but to focus on specific banks is to miss the point. And that's not because Chase has banking relationships with Trump and family going back decades, Trump campaign accounts, and looking ahead, the eventual Trump presidential library. The crucial truth is that banks are in the business of carefully matching the wealth of savers with credible individuals, businesses and governments in need of savings. Which means they're not in the business of turning their noses up to half of the U.S. population of savers, or closing the accounts of savers with wealth to put to work. Some call account refusal or closure 'debanking,' which realistically wasn't even a word until 2023-2024. With good reason. Banks exist to open accounts, not close them. Which requires a pivot. To focus on banks allegedly turning away business for political reasons, or closing accounts similarly for reasons of politics, is for pundits, politicians and even presidents to avert their gaze from the real problem: regulators. On the matter of closed or refused accounts, criticism of banks is a non sequitur. Banks are overseen by regulators that can make life miserable for them via the imposition of 'asset caps,' excessive capital requirements, or worst of all, closure. With the latter and much more well in mind, banks are studious about not finding themselves on the wrong side of regulators. Which is a long or short way of saying that depending on the Party in control in Washington, and by extension the Party that is appointing regulators, banks must at times choose their customers wisely. Regulators will say the choosing is rooted in banks protecting their reputations, but as evidenced by the business that banks are in, no such regulation is needed. More realistically, regulators have too often substituted their politics for sound oversight. Cryptocurrency and crypto adjacent businesses were unpopular during the Biden years, gun and gun manufacturers when Barack Obama occupied the White House, while in Republican leaning U.S. locales like Texas, banks have experienced trouble if viewed as unfriendly to oil & gas interests. The main thing is that debanking has nothing to do with business, and everything to do with the politics that banks studiously try to avoid. See above. Which is why President Trump's broad focus on regulation as the source of so-called 'debanking' is so important. Banks open accounts, regulators force their refusal, closure, or both. With his executive order meant to end the practice of debanking, Trump is correctly making this about overly politicized regulators, not banks attempting to mix politics and business. Which means banks can get back to doing what they do best, all free of the politics that they've long avoided based on a clear-eyed grasp of what Michael Jordan intuited decades ago.
