At a Texas House of Representatives hearing on Monday, Democratic State Rep. Christian Manuel questioned redistricting bill author Republican State Rep. Todd Hunter on the legislation’s impacts and reasoning.
00:00Representative Emanuel, recognize the question, Bill Arthur on the substitute.
00:03Thank you so much.
00:06Chairman Hunter, just some really quick questions.
00:11Thank you for laying out the layout of the districts of where they are with President
00:18Trump and Vice President Harris.
00:21What I was wondering is, looking at CD, just to start off with CD30 and 33, has there been
00:31any concern about the fact that historically CD30 has always had an economic engine of the
00:45airport in their district and now it is no longer there?
00:49And the reason I ask that is because, not that anybody deserves to have an airport or
00:56to have, deserves to have any economic interest because people move their district headquarters
01:02wherever they choose to, but there are some historical economic engines that have been
01:09in 30 that are now and have been moved to Congressional District 33 that were in a
01:15predominantly black, African American area and was wondering if that was a part of any
01:22decision making when it comes to the maps as part as one of the questions?
01:27So Representative Emanuel, I think that those two districts that you referenced were in the
01:32original and unchanged in the substitute.
01:35So the questions I think the only thing pending before the committee at this time is the substitute,
01:40whether to adopt it, so yeah, questions I think have to be limited only to the substitute.
01:46Yes, sir.
01:47Okay, so let me ask this way into the substitute.
01:49Are all of the economic engines that were in Congressional District 30, are they still in
01:56that Congressional District now?
01:59That's again the underlying bill.
02:02Again, that's the underlying bill you're not asking me about.
02:05I told you at the top, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 20, 29, 36, and 38 are the changes.
02:13Okay.
02:14But, like I told Dean Thompson, if you'll go on District Viewer and look at the original
02:2030, it'll tell you exactly where the line is.
02:23Okay.
02:24So as of right now, just can you, and I'm so sorry, I promise I'm not trying to be facetious.
02:28Can you tell me those districts one more time?
02:30And I know it is completely on the call.
02:31Absolutely.
02:32No, no, no, no.
02:342, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 22, 29, 36, 38.
02:49Just want to make sure.
02:50Okay.
02:51Okay.
02:52I'm glad you said that.
02:53So I have two questions, because you answered my question.
02:57So there aren't any changes to 30 and 33.
03:00It's only to these lists from 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 22, 29, 36, and 38.
03:10Just want to make sure.
03:11Okay.
03:12So you answered my question, so there aren't any changes to those.
03:17As it relates to CD9 and CD29, and if, and I completely understand if you don't have the
03:25answers to it, because I know sometimes we just don't know.
03:30Are there any changes in the economic engines to CD9 and CD29, and the reason I ask is because
03:38those are traditionally districts that have had minority representation and were minority
03:47coalition districts previous.
03:48So I'm wondering if there's been any changes to those coalition districts as it relates to
03:54their economic engines that have been used to help prop up those communities in those districts.
04:01Okay.
04:02Now, as a preference, we've already gone through the two, Rochu and Pettaway.
04:08So, as you remember, there's a different view on the legal involvement of the coalition.
04:13Right.
04:14Do I specifically know?
04:16The answer is no.
04:17Okay.
04:18You can go on District Bureau.
04:20And, again, being a coastal guy, now that CD9 has Liberty County, I think that's a great
04:29economic energy area.
04:32So I think you gained a whole bunch.
04:34Well, we're both coastal guys, I will agree on that.
04:37What I will say is all the refinery and industry that is traditionally in the areas
04:49are between mainly Jefferson and Galveston, parts of Orange, but mainly Jefferson and Orange.
04:57I'm not seeing what industry there is that is in Congressional District 9,
05:03because I know that we have had prospects of what could come to those areas,
05:09but they've all been vastly working class industrial areas.
05:14And the reason I ask, because I did, I brought this up before,
05:18is that Congressional District 14, which is Jefferson and Orange, which, well,
05:24in Galveston, which predominantly used to not look like this,
05:29that brought really bad economic interest to our area,
05:34because we ended up being merged with a predominantly blue collar retail industry.
05:42And it caused us to lose a massive amount of GDP.
05:46It caused us to have a massive amount of underemployed black, whites,
05:50Hispanics, Latinos, and biracial people.
05:54And I'm just wondering if that was the case that was happening in CD 9,
05:59from where it used to be, and CD 18 as well.
06:03So I got that understanding.
06:05You don't know if there are any economic engines that have been changed in
06:10Congressional District 19 or Congressional District 29, but
06:15we're assuming that that should be better for us as coastal members.
06:21Now 19, you mentioned this.
06:23Sorry, not 19, I'm sorry, 9 and 29, I apologize.
06:25Yeah, 9 and 29, as I indicated, you'd go on District Viewer to look.
06:29Do I know specifically without going to that?
06:32I do not.
06:33I do think, as you know, at the top, political performance was used, and that was our factor.
06:39Okay, and I think this should be the last question, because I don't want to be a liar.
06:44May I ask, what was the reason for the changes in the Congressional Districts from what we had previous?
06:51Like, what was the reasoning for changing those districts previous to now?
06:57To make them more Republican.
06:59To make them more Republican.
07:00That's right, partisanship, political performance.
07:03That's what I said at the very top.
07:05Absolutely.
07:06They've been enhanced, and it makes it stronger, and it allows Republican performance.
07:11Partisan under the U.S. Supreme Court.
07:13Okay, so, please forgive me, Chairman.
07:16I'm really not trying to be adversarial, I promise.
07:19So, we're making sure that now these districts are purely political.
07:24When the last time we were here, and I really don't mean that as a pun intended,
07:29that we talked about how some of these districts were predominantly now going to be Hispanic or Latino opportunities.
07:38So, now it's not that we are doing this, you're saying, because it's purely because of President Trump's performance in an election.
07:49So, it has, is that what we're saying is the reason that we're changing CD9 and the rest of 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 22, 29, 36, and 38, correct?
08:02No, I don't agree with you.
08:04The U.S. Supreme Court, as we've already talked in many, many hours, Rucho, says that jurisdiction may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering,
08:13recognizing that politics and political considerations are inseparable from districting and apportionment.
08:19It says that you can use partisan interests.
08:22It can use political performance.
08:24It indicates that this is absolutely a factor.
08:27This is a U.S. Supreme Court, and we are able to use that.
08:32It's the same premise that I provided in the prior presentation.
08:38Has the U.S. Supreme Court ever put a precedent on doing mid-decade redistricting?
08:44We've done it before.
08:46Well, no, I know we've done it before, but he went to jail.
08:48So that's the reason I'm asking is have we ever – have they placed anything in there that says that –
08:53I don't agree with that.
08:54I think that's a remark that I would not agree with.
08:59To bring up somebody who went to jail, I can give you 14 other reasons why maybe the other side was wrong.
09:05I don't think we want to shoot at each other in the hearing.
09:07No, no, no, no, no.
09:08I get that.
09:08No, no, no, but you don't – I don't agree with that.
09:10Mid – there's nothing that prevents this congressional redistricting.
09:14No, no, no, no, no.
09:15And we could do it again.
09:16I'm not saying that.
09:17What I'm saying is I'm going to go back to the previous last hearing is my district was redistrict mid-decade redistricting in 2003.
09:31And because of that, Tom DeLay was sentenced to jail because there were things that he had done during that.
09:39And Tom DeLay is probably going to get me, so I pre-apologize.
09:41This doesn't really have any –
09:43So, no, what I'm saying is that –
09:44About this committee's substitute.
09:46No, I'm asking is because you brought up the Supreme Court.
09:49That's the only reason.
09:50I promise.
09:50I'm not an attorney.
09:51I think you all know that.
09:53I'm just a former simple staffer who's been here for 21 years in October.
09:58And I was just wondering if – I've been that long.
10:03I know.
10:03I have nothing else to do important in my life.
10:06Wondering if – since we are bringing up the Supreme Court, is it that we can do this because of performance?
10:13I totally understand that, Chairman Hunter, was wondering if the Supreme Court had ever issued out a statement saying that mid-decade redistricting is something that is not an issue.
10:28Because, again, the only reason I'm saying that is because the last person in Texas who did that did go to jail.
10:35I'm not saying you are anyone else.
10:38I'm saying the last person who did that in Texas went to jail because he was doing things on a federal level that was found to be –
10:48Representative.
10:49Representative.
10:49Found to be for him criminally to spend time in jail.
10:52Representative, you're off on not the committee's substitute.
10:54Yeah.
10:54You're going off – you know, this was all discussed August 1st.
11:00Yes, sir.
11:00This is August 18th.
11:02We're on a committee's substitute, and we're not re-arguing those areas.
11:09If you have questions on this plan, I will focus on it.
11:15Okay.
11:15We will not agree –
11:16I understand.
11:18We will respectfully disagree with each other.
11:21But, Mr. Chairman, let's focus on the substitute.
11:23Okay.
11:24I want to focus on the sub, and I'll just say this.
11:26Focusing on a committee substitute, has there ever been a Supreme Court ruling that says the committee substitute for redistricting can be wrong?
11:38Well, I think, Representative – I feel you in the sense of trying to tie the question to it.
11:42Really, the questions, I think, pending before the committee at this time are just about the changes that have been made in the committee substitute compared to the introduced.
11:52Okay.
11:53And the explanations for those, as opposed to the constitutionality of mid-decade redistricting, which I think doesn't touch the changes on the map.
12:03So, if you have a question about, you know, a particular change, certainly fair game.
12:07Perfect.
12:08Okay.
12:08I do actually have one.
12:09When it comes to Congressional District 33, Chairman Hunter, would you mind, again, and I pre-apologize, can you give me the breakdown and the reasoning for 30 – Congressional District 33 changing from where it was to why?
12:28Like, why we're moving it or changing it to where it is?
12:31So, on that one, Representative – so, 33 did not change.
12:36So, 30 changed.
12:3830 did not change either.
12:40So, it was 36.
12:4136 and 38.
12:43Okay.
12:43So, question of the chair, then.
12:45Sure.
12:47And please forgive my novice for asking this question.
12:50I thought that when we changed any Congressional District, even by one voter, it changed every Congressional District because we had to move people.
12:59Fair question.
12:59So, maybe that's where I'm going to move.
13:00So, what you'll see on your district view and in front of you, Representative, if you'll see, there's a handout that has, at the top in red, Plan C-2331.
13:12Yes.
13:12And then in black underneath it, Plan C-333.
13:14So, this shows, obviously, just with the limit of an 11 by 17 piece of paper, the changes that were made between the introduced and the committee substitute.
13:27The introduced is the red lines.
13:30You see those?
13:31Yes.
13:31And the substitute is the colored areas that are shaded.
13:35And so, what you'll see, for example, your questions earlier about.
13:38Real quick.
13:38Is that the dark shaded part or the red shaded part?
13:42Any type of color shading is the committee substitute.
13:47And any type of red line is the introduced.
13:52And so, if you'll look, Representative, the top right corner of that.
13:55Oh, okay.
13:55You see in 30 and 33.
13:56You see how they line up perfectly?
13:58So, like in 38, sorry, not 38, so like in 22, you see where it used to be in this boundary up here next to Waller County, but it's now drawn somewhere different.
14:11So, that's actually going to be within Waller County.
14:12So, you can ask the representative questions about the differentials between the shaded areas and the red lines, basically.
14:20Does that make sense?
14:20Yes.
14:20No, no, no.
14:21Absolutely.
14:22So, do you have a question for the representative about anything on that?
14:24Yeah, go for it.
14:25I do, if you just give me one.
14:26Because my biggest concern is, and again, Chairman Hunter, I appreciate you taking the time.
14:32I promise I'm not going to try to belabor the moment because I know people are probably already irritated as it is.
14:38Looking at this, in those red lines of it, looking at 29 and 18, the only changes have been is that Congressional District 18 has been, basically, it has increased its population of black people while also keeping its economic engines that it's traditionally had.
15:06Is that correct, or are we only going off of race?
15:10No, again, as I answered Dean Thompson, CD18 decreases black CVAP from 50.81% to 50.71%.
15:27But, conversely, 50.81% to 50.71%.
15:33Seven, one.
15:34Okay, so it decreases the Hispanic CVAP from 22.40% to 23.83%.
15:45Okay, and just trying to make sure that I'm staying in the sub-chairman, so sorry about that.
15:53When we're looking at Congressional District 30, there are no changes to that.
16:02Again, stipulated no changes in the committee sub to 30.
16:05Okay, no, I'm sorry, I'm trying to look at the map, and there also are not any changes to 33, is that correct?
Be the first to comment