Latest news with #Statehouse
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
5 things to know about the Texas special session on redistricting
Texas Republicans are using this month's special session to attempt to lock in the party's majority in Congress by means of weakening or eliminating Democratic districts in the state. As President Trump's approval ratings slide and as Republicans brace for an unfavorable midterm environment, the president has called on the Texas GOP to give him five more seats in a nearly deadlocked House — forcing Democrats into a fight over redistricting they had hoped would happen in 2030, after they had several more years to make gains in the state. Now that struggle likely will take center stage in the special session — originally called by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to deal with issues like a THC ban and the need for flood warning systems after this month's catastrophic floods — and risks opening up a redistricting arms race around the country. Here are five things to know about the special session on redistricting: How does it work? In legislative terms, redistricting proceeds like any other piece of legislation: A bill introduced in the House's standing committee on redistricting then moves through other committees to a floor vote. If that bill becomes law, then a redistricting committee comprising state leaders — now all GOP — will get to redraw congressional maps. It's the circumstances around that potential bill that are unusual — and that, in Texas, carry deep historical overtones. While redistricting generally only happens every decade after the results of the decennial census, Texas Republicans have often used middecade restricting to cement their power. In 2003, Republican leaders took advantage of the Statehouse's first GOP majority in a century to pass new maps that broke apart the districts of Texas Democratic members. That broke a century-old Democratic majority in Texas's congressional delegation. Following redistricting after the 2000 Census, Democrats won 17 House seats during the 2002 election, while Republicans won 15. But in 2004, after the initial redistricting push, those numbers were more than reversed. In the new districts, after trusted incumbents lost their seats, Democrats took just 11 seats — and Republicans 21. How many more districts will be added? In short, it's up in the air. Trump has demanded the state party find him five more seats; lawmakers have not yet publicly released any proposals of a redrawn House map, which is expected to happen after the session begins Monday. Right now, the current partisan breakdown in Texas's delegation in the House is 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats. Significantly, Texas isn't the only GOP-led state planning to redraw its lines this year. Ohio was already planning to undergo the process because of House maps passed in 2022 that did not have bipartisan support. Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D) and Emilia Sykes (D) in Ohio's 9th and 13th Congressional Districts, respectively, are among the most vulnerable and likely to be targeted. Rep. Greg Landsman (D), who represents Ohio's 1st Congressional District in Cincinnati, could also be targeted. How will existing districts be affected? On July 7, Trump's Department of Justice sent a letter to Texas demanding redistricting on the grounds that four majority-minority 'Black-brown' districts were 'unconstitutional racial gerrymanders' under the Voting Rights Act — and urged the state to break them up. The legal analysis in that argument is 'superficial,' Harvard Law School professor Guy Charles wrote after the letter, arguing its purpose was primarily 'to provide a justification for Texas if it redraws those four districts.' The DOJ focus on Black-brown districts suggests redistricting will take a form similar to the hub-and-spoke maps adopted after 2003: Democratic coalition districts broken up into overwhelmingly minority districts in the urban core, surrounded by Republican-majority districts with fantails stretching out through the suburbs. The districts targeted in the DOJ letter are a Fort Worth-area district represented by Rep. Marc Veasey (D), and three Houston districts represented by Democratic Reps. Al Green, Sylvia Garcia and the late Sylvester Turner — the last of which is in the middle of a special election to fill the seat. But one state Democratic strategist compared the four districts listed in the Trump DOJ letter to a 'lockpick' that allowed state Republicans to begin redrawing maps at will, meaning that far more districts could be targeted — particularly white Democrats like Reps. Lizzie Fletcher or Lloyd Doggett. While the Justice Department in its letter argued 'several Texas Congressional Districts constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymanders,' The Texas Tribune noted that state lawmakers who drew the House maps after the 2020 Census argued they had drawn their lines with no regard for race. How will it impact the midterms? The midcycle redistricting could aid congressional Republicans who are bracing to lose some seats — and their razor-thin majority in the House. If the Texas plan succeeds, it offers a cushion to offset some of their losses — though if Republicans try to claim too many seats, they risk diluting their power and making formerly-safe Republican seats more competitive. There's another risk: Triggering a redistricting arms race around the country. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) followed the DOJ letter by announcing his own plans to pursue middecade redistricting, House Democrats in other blue states are hoping to see their maps revisited and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has hinted the party is looking at New Jersey and New York. Those states incorporate the use of a redistricting commission to create their maps, presenting hurdles for lawmakers. What are Texas Democrats doing to respond? Damage control. For Texas Democrats, the model for how to fight redistricting is what they did in 2003 and 2021: Flee the state to deny Republicans a quorum — the necessary minimum number of members present to do business. Neither is a particularly encouraging model, however. Both times, Republicans ultimately passed the legislation in question, and sustaining such a campaign now would be difficult: Legislative Democrats would have to remain in exile until next year's primaries, away from their families and facing $500 fines per person per day. But while the 2003 and 2021 walkouts failed at blocking Republican bills, they did draw national attention and ultimately help the party win a better deal than they otherwise might have. Some party strategists are arguing that a strategic retreat this time, coupled with an aggressive messaging campaign targeting President Trump's unpopular spending bill, could help Democrats turn a debacle into an opportunity, particularly if Republicans overreach. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
5 things to know about the Texas special session on redistricting
Texas Republicans are using this month's special session to attempt to lock in the party's majority in Congress by means of weakening or eliminating Democratic districts in the state. As President Trump's approval ratings slide and as Republicans brace for an unfavorable midterm environment, the president has called on the Texas GOP to give him five more seats in a nearly deadlocked House — forcing Democrats into a fight over redistricting they had hoped would happen in 2030, after they had several more years to make gains in the state. Now that struggle likely will take center stage in the special session — originally called by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to deal with issues like a THC ban and the need for flood warning systems after this month's catastrophic floods — and risks opening up a redistricting arms race around the country. Here are five things to know about the special session on redistricting: How does it work? In legislative terms, redistricting proceeds like any other piece of legislation: A bill introduced in the House's standing committee on redistricting then moves through other committees to a floor vote. If that bill becomes law, then a redistricting committee comprising state leaders — now all GOP — will get to redraw congressional maps. It's the circumstances around that potential bill that are unusual — and that, in Texas, carry deep historical overtones. While redistricting generally only happens every decade after the results of the decennial census, Texas Republicans have often used middecade restricting to cement their power. In 2003, Republican leaders took advantage of the Statehouse's first GOP majority in a century to pass new maps that broke apart the districts of Texas Democratic members. That broke a century-old Democratic majority in Texas's congressional delegation. Following redistricting after the 2000 Census, Democrats won 17 House seats during the 2002 election, while Republicans won 15. But in 2004, after the initial redistricting push, those numbers were more than reversed. In the new districts, after trusted incumbents lost their seats, Democrats took just 11 seats — and Republicans 21. How many more districts will be added? In short, it's up in the air. Trump has demanded the state party find him five more seats; lawmakers have not yet publicly released any proposals of a redrawn House map, which is expected to happen after the session begins Monday. Right now, the current partisan breakdown in Texas's delegation in the House is 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats. Significantly, Texas isn't the only GOP-led state planning to redraw its lines this year. Ohio was already planning to undergo the process because of House maps passed in 2022 that did not have bipartisan support. Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D) and Emilia Sykes (D) in Ohio's 9th and 13th Congressional Districts, respectively, are among the most vulnerable and likely to be targeted. Rep. Greg Landsman (D), who represents Ohio's 1st Congressional District in Cincinnati, could also be targeted. How will existing districts be affected? On July 7, Trump's Department of Justice sent a letter to Texas demanding redistricting on the grounds that four majority-minority 'Black-brown' districts were 'unconstitutional racial gerrymanders' under the Voting Rights Act — and urged the state to break them up. The legal analysis in that argument is 'superficial,' Harvard Law School professor Guy Charles wrote after the letter, arguing its purpose was primarily 'to provide a justification for Texas if it redraws those four districts.' The DOJ focus on Black-brown districts suggests redistricting will take a form similar to the hub-and-spoke maps adopted after 2003: Democratic coalition districts broken up into overwhelmingly minority districts in the urban core, surrounded by Republican-majority districts with fantails stretching out through the suburbs. The districts targeted in the DOJ letter are a Fort Worth-area district represented by Rep. Marc Veasey (D), and three Houston districts represented by Democratic Reps. Al Green, Sylvia Garcia and the late Sylvester Turner — the last of which is in the middle of a special election to fill the seat. But one state Democratic strategist compared the four districts listed in the Trump DOJ letter to a 'lockpick' that allowed state Republicans to begin redrawing maps at will, meaning that far more districts could be targeted — particularly white Democrats like Reps. Lizzie Fletcher or Lloyd Doggett. While the Justice Department in its letter argued 'several Texas Congressional Districts constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymanders,' The Texas Tribune noted that state lawmakers who drew the House maps after the 2020 Census argued they had drawn their lines with no regard for race. How will it impact the midterms? The midcycle redistricting could aid congressional Republicans who are bracing to lose some seats — and their razor-thin majority in the House. If the Texas plan succeeds, it offers a cushion to offset some of their losses — though if Republicans try to claim too many seats, they risk diluting their power and making formerly-safe Republican seats more competitive. There's another risk: Triggering a redistricting arms race around the country. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) followed the DOJ letter by announcing his own plans to pursue middecade redistricting, House Democrats in other blue states are hoping to see their maps revisited and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has hinted the party is looking at New Jersey and New York. Those states incorporate the use of a redistricting commission to create their maps, presenting hurdles for lawmakers. What are Texas Democrats doing to respond? Damage control. For Texas Democrats, the model for how to fight redistricting is what they did in 2003 and 2021: Flee the state to deny Republicans a quorum — the necessary minimum number of members present to do business. Neither is a particularly encouraging model, however. Both times, Republicans ultimately passed the legislation in question, and sustaining such a campaign now would be difficult: Legislative Democrats would have to remain in exile until next year's primaries, away from their families and facing $500 fines per person per day. But while the 2003 and 2021 walkouts failed at blocking Republican bills, they did draw national attention and ultimately help the party win a better deal than they otherwise might have. Some party strategists are arguing that a strategic retreat this time, coupled with an aggressive messaging campaign targeting President Trump's unpopular spending bill, could help Democrats turn a debacle into an opportunity, particularly if Republicans overreach.
Indianapolis Star
16-07-2025
- Health
- Indianapolis Star
Planned Parenthood fills health care gaps after Indiana's Medicaid cuts
Deputy Opinion Editor Jacob Stewart's column, 'Defunding Planned Parenthood won't stop virtual abortions in Indiana,' would be laughable if the Statehouse Republicans he used to work for hadn't already done costly and dangerous damage to reproductive health in this state. Indiana is the third-worst state in the nation when it comes to maternal mortality because the state is too focused on passing laws against abortion instead of funding programs that keep people alive. Stewart calls Planned Parenthood 'an abortion clinic." However, abortions make up only 4% of the services they provide. 24% of services they provide involve contraception. Studies have shown that increasing access to contraception reduces abortion rates. Criminalizing abortion does not. Another 54% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are STI testing and treatment. Planned Parenthood is an available and reachable option for those who no longer have coverage for these services following state and federal legislation limiting access to Medicaid. While Stewart bemoans the ability of patients to access abortion care via telehealth, which one can only assume comes from his personal opinion of when life begins, he does not mention the demise of accessible and affordable health care for living breathing people.
Scientific American
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Scientific American
Texas Did Little to Brace for Floods despite Knowing Risks
4 min read Texas has identified more than $50 billion in flood control needs, but lawmakers have devoted just $1.4 billion to address them CLIMATEWIRE | Texas knows it isn't prepared for floods. But the state has done little to address the risk — and the federal government under President Donald Trump is unlikely to help Texas cover the cost. The threat was underscored last week when floodwaters ravaged central Texas — killing more than 100 people, including more than two dozen children and staff at a riverside summer camp. About 160 people were still missing as of Tuesday evening, according to Texas public safety officials. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Officials have vowed to take action, and state lawmakers are scheduled to meet July 21 for a special legislative session that's intended to bolster Texas' emergency response. Yet the latest disaster isn't the first time Texas has dealt with mass casualties from a flood event. Nor is the upcoming Statehouse session the first time that Texas has tried to address flood risk. The lack of meaningful progress highlights the challenge of preparing for natural disasters such as floods and wildfires that are being made worse by climate change. And it reinforces the risk of shifting more of that responsibility to states, as proposed by the Trump administration. 'Hopefully this tragic event will open everyone's eyes," said Marie Camino, government affairs director at the Nature Conservancy in Texas. Texas has faced devastating floods before — including 2017, when Hurricane Harvey dumped more than 48 inches of rain on Houston and other Gulf Coast communities. The storm left dozens dead and caused more than $125 billion in damages. In response, state lawmakers in 2019 created the Texas Flood Infrastructure Fund and began planning projects to control high water around the state. The fund, overseen by the Texas Water Development Board, has identified $54 billion in flood control needs across Texas. But lawmakers so far have devoted just $1.4 billion to fix them. The lack of funding can be attributed to two factors, observers say. The first is ideological. Texas Republicans — who control the Statehouse and governor's mansion — are big believers in fiscal conservatism. So there isn't a groundswell of enthusiasm to fund major government projects. There's a practical concern too. Before lawmakers were willing to commit money to flood projects, they wanted to make sure that plans were written to address each river basin in the state. Otherwise, there's the risk that a project in one city would simply steer floodwaters to other communities, said state Sen. Charles Perry, who chairs the Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs. 'We created this very detailed, very elaborate watershed planning, where every watershed would coordinate with all the municipalities and cities up and down that watershed to make sure that as you're moving water from one place, you're not just dumping it on the next place,' he said. Texas legislators have tried recently to steer more money to the effort. This spring, lawmakers passed a plan that would devote up to $500 million annually over the next 20 years to flood projects. But the proposal must first earn the support of Texas voters in a statewide referendum, now set for November. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and other state officials have described the plan as a 'Texas-sized' commitment to water infrastructure and flood prevention. Perry said the money could help address the Legislature's on-again, off-again approach to funding flood projects. 'It is a game changer,' Perry said. 'It will be significant.' Even if voters approve the proposal, there's another catch. Lawmakers have talked about using the state money as matching funds for federal grants — and that appears less likely under the Trump administration. Earlier this year, Trump canceled a grant program that helps states, tribes and local communities prepare for natural disasters. The president also has stopped approving Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants, which help states recover from disasters and harden their communities against future calamities. "Prior to the current administration, a planning assumption could be that those state monies could be used in concert with federal mitigation and infrastructure money to make the state and local funds go further,' said Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers. "Given the administration's direction at this point, it probably is a logical question to ask whether or not that will be enough,' Berginnis added. 'It doesn't appear that there will be federal funds to match that." The risks will keep rising with global warming, scientists say. That means events like last week's floods will become more frequent. 'Flash flood events from torrential downpours and thunderstorms is actually something I think we've significantly underestimated as a hazard in a warming climate,' said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the California Institute for Water Resources, in a live YouTube talk on Monday. 'These are precisely the kinds of events that are going to increase the most — and in fact already are, and much faster than 'ordinary' precipitation events.' It's not clear yet how state lawmakers will address emergency management when they meet later this month. Under state law, the governor sets the agenda for special sessions, and Abbott hasn't announced his intentions. Perry said he's working on a bill that would allow some of the state water funds to flow toward emergency response equipment. Lawmakers considered a bill this spring that would've paid for warning sirens and other communications equipment, but they rejected it because of its cost. But state leaders are lining up to take action. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who oversees the state Senate, said Monday on Fox News that warning sirens in flood-prone areas would be a priority, after news reports showed that Kerr County officials considered the idea but balked at the cost. Abbott and House Speaker Dustin Burrows toured Kerr County by helicopter Tuesday and spoke to reporters in Hunt, one of the towns devastated by the flood. Burrows said he's fielding calls from House members across the state who want to help — and Abbott promised results. 'We want to make sure that when we end that session, we end it making sure these communities are better, more resilient and have the resources that they need for the next chapter of their lives,' Abbott said.
Yahoo
01-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New Jersey lawmakers pass $58.8 billion budget
Sen. Nicholas Scutari talks with Sen. Bob Smith in the Statehouse in Trenton on Monday, June 30, 2025. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor) New Jersey lawmakers approved a $58.8 billion spending bill in votes that largely fell along party lines just hours before a deadline that would have sent the state government into a shutdown. The budget maintains a full pension payment and promises to send more than $12 billion to aid the state's K-12 schools, but it dips into state reserves to support a structural deficit that has expanded above the levels Gov. Phil Murphy pitched in February. 'What does this budget include? It includes record amounts of property tax relief. It includes fully funding the pension payment for the fifth year in a row, fully funding the school funding formula,' said Sen. Paul Sarlo, the chamber's budget chairman. The Senate approved the bill in a 26-13 vote, while the Assembly approved it in a 52-27 vote with one abstention. Murphy's office announced at 12:06 a.m. Tuesday that he had signed it. Democratic lawmakers praised the bill for its reversals of some cuts proposed by Murphy. 'I think the budget came out pretty well. There's a tremendous amount of spending on really important things,' said Senate President Nicholas Scutari (D-Union) The plan includes a $6.7 billion surplus the state is forecasted to maintain at the end of the fiscal year that begins July 1. While reduced from the record levels seen in recent years — the state's reserves pushed to above $10 billion in fiscal year 2024 but have since been reduced by deficit spending — the surplus is still among the largest in state history. The budget will continue to run a structural deficit. Spending levels in the bill exceed revenue — including from one-shot sources that cannot or will not recur in the fiscal year that begins in July 2026 — by $1.5 billion, down from $2.1 billion the prior year but up from the $1.2 billion Murphy proposed in February. Republican members criticized the spending bill's size and breakneck passage. Those misgivings have become something of a yearly exercise for GOP lawmakers who have seen the budget swell from the $35.5 billion approved in Chris Christie's final year as governor. 'The truth about the budget is that it continues us on an unsustainable path. The budget does not make New Jersey more affordable. We are once again spending too much,' said Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz (R-Union), the chamber's GOP budget officer. Much of those increases can be attributed to heightened pension payments and school aid, which have risen by nearly $8.8 billion under Murphy. 'We can all agree this budget spends more than Gov. Murphy's budget in 2018. But why? Let's talk about where the budget growth has been focused. The top six drivers in spending growth are the following: the pension payment, school funding, direct property tax relief, Medicaid health benefits, and programs for the developmentally disabled,' said Assemblywoman Eliana Pintor Marin (D-Essex), the chamber's budget chair. The budget includes payments under Stay NJ, a property tax relief program that promises to halve seniors' property tax bills, to a cap of $6,500. Stay NJ will pay a half-year's benefit in the fiscal year that begins July 1. Republicans also derided new taxes both chambers approved Monday. Those include higher fees on the sale of properties worth more than $2 million, casinos' online wagering wins, cigarettes, and electronic cigarette fluid. The budget has faced criticism from other corners, including from high-ranking members of the administration. Acting State Comptroller Kevin Walsh railed against a provision that bars officials from blocking Medicaid payments to low-performing nursing homes. 'If the budget passes without changes, the Legislature will be on the side of bad nursing homes that harm New Jersey's most vulnerable residents — without even giving the public a chance to weigh in,' Walsh warned on social media Sunday. Attorney General Matt Platkin criticized provisions that divert $45 million in opioid settlement money to the state's general fund, arguing those dollars were meant to fund addiction treatment and not be used to support overall state spending. Others took aim at diversions from the state's Clean Energy Fund. NJ Transit is set to receive $140.1 million in clean energy money in the coming July-to-June fiscal year, and the budget pulls an additional $50 million of its dollars into the general fund. The diversions have irked progressive and environmental groups that charge money from the fund should be used for renewable energy projects. They said pulling its funds into the state budget could delay generation capacity that could push down spiking electricity prices. 'The public is being told we're making progress in making our state's energy system more affordable and reliable, but the budget tells a very different story,' said Anjuli Ramos-Busot, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. 'We urge lawmakers to reverse this raid and deliver a budget that invests in the future, not robs from it.' Antoinette Miles, state director for the New Jersey Working Families Party, said the spending bill does too little to insulate New Jersey from expected federal cuts that could deprive it of between $2.5 and $5 billion in federal Medicaid dollars. The budget, she said, 'fails to meet the moment.' Business groups welcomed some parts of the budget — like sales tax exemptions for baby items like cribs and tax credits for manufacturers — they chiefly worried it would make New Jersey businesses less competitive. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
