At a Texas House of Representatives Hearing, State Rep. Todd Hunter (R) and Rep. Gervin Hawkins (D) held a heated exchange over GOP redistricting plans and the recent Democratic walkout.
00:00Mr. Hunter? Yeah. Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker? Mr. Huggins for what purpose? Will the gentleman
00:09yield? Not yet. Not at this time. Mr. Speaker members, this is unnecessary. This is the
00:19law, and when my opening, I told you about the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Spiller asked about
00:28Pettaway, which dealt with Section 2, so we did mention those, but it's unnecessary. It's
00:36why don't we just, all of you, all 150, vote that this bill is correct because that's the
00:44way it should be. That's basically what this amendment is. We're following the Voting Rights
00:49Act. We will follow the Voting Rights Act. I told you that the council that we relied on
00:55followed it, and I asked them to. It's unnecessary, and guess what? It's incorporated in this bill,
01:04so I'll be moving the table. Will the gentleman yield questions?
01:08Governor Hawkins? Yes. The gentleman yields for questions.
01:10Thank you, Representative Hunter. You know, Representative Martinez-Fisher just made a great point about all
01:16the other election levels, and so my question is, specifically because during the committee
01:23hearing, you didn't have knowledge of certain things, and I'm assuming you've
01:28abreast yourself now, and so I'd like to really get clarity on those things. What was your understanding
01:37of the DOJ's letter regarding redistricting? Because at that point, you couldn't answer it, and as
01:42Representative Martinez-Fisher brought up other things, did you have a clear understanding,
01:48or what was your understanding of the DOJ's letter?
01:51My answer hasn't changed one bit. There was a DOJ letter. It's out there. DOJ will get
01:58to review this. I have no criticism. I have no feedback. They do what they want. We do what
02:05we want. Nothing any different.
02:07Okay, so you've read it now. I know at the committee hearing you have not read it.
02:11I have not. I've just read parts of it.
02:14Okay. It was a short letter, but anyway.
02:17Well, it doesn't matter.
02:18So, in doing this redistricting at this time, what were your primary objectives? I just
02:25want to be clear, because a lot of these questions you didn't have answers for during
02:29the committee hearing, and I just want to be clear.
02:31Let's you and I agree to disagree. I 100% disagree with you. You just didn't like my answers.
02:39Every time nobody likes my answer, they said you didn't answer. No, you're right. I don't
02:44agree with you. Now, number one, there's nothing wrong with doing redistricting. I've said that
02:52in committee, and I said that on the floor in the opening. We can do redistricting. You
02:59have had a discussion about a U.S. Supreme Court and a Fifth Circuit that has new impact on
03:06the law, which gives us justification further to look at redistricting. And we looked at redistricting,
03:15and we created five new congressional seats for our Hispanic majority. So, what was the objective? The objective
03:27was to take all of those factors, use political performance, and see if we could increase political
03:35performance in the state of Texas. My answer is now, and it was then.
03:40Thank you, Representative Hunter, and I want to continue asking my questions. So, the DOJ
03:47letter, did it trigger anything for you in terms of moving through this mid-decade redistricting?
03:57Well. I just want to be clear. Look, there was a DOJ letter. It was discussed in committee. I get lots of
04:08letters, been through lots of letters in these redistricting. To me, there's a letter.
04:15So, did you— And the lawyers looked at it, took it all into account, and then we came up with this plan,
04:21which said it died. It met the thresholds. It met the requirements. It met the laws. So, yeah.
04:28So, if the failure to comply with the DOJ letter, did you think that there was going to be any legal
04:35challenges? When you say the word redistricting, I think you know there's going to be legal
04:43challenges. And I think we all know that your groups filed suit recently. So, I think you've
04:50already answered your question. So, my next question is, did you consider any alternative
04:56redistricting plans? I know as a committee member, there was no discussion, what I would
05:02call a rich discussion around the redistricting plan, the maps, or anything like that. So, did
05:09you consider anything else? Absolutely. That's why we did the substitute Monday and increase more
05:15Republicans. And so, that's why you added 12 increases? Okay. Thank you for that answer,
05:22sir. Did you express any concerns about the potential for racial gerrymandering? You know,
05:28one of the things I want to be clear, I want to be perfectly clear, that as an African American
05:35here in the chamber, a chamber I want to continue to have respect for, we weren't asked any questions
05:44and or engaged in the process at all. Do you believe that's fair? Are you talking about
05:51you or are you talking about others? I'm talking about the Texas Legislative Black
05:57Caucus, who potentially will lose two seats. I'm talking about an interest group that I thought
06:02had a role, an important role in this process. You absolutely did. And representative, you and I know
06:09each other, but you left 17 to 18 days. You left 17 to 18 days, you could have sat with
06:16me. You left 7 to 18 days leaving this state. My view, the public could have been involved,
06:21the whole caucus could have been involved, all 150 people could have been involved. I'm not finished.
06:26No, let me get finished. You're not letting me talk. You're the back mic, you ask the question,
06:31I get to talk. You and I disagree. I disagree that the public had proper input.
06:38Ma'am, you will not let me talk. Members, please make sure you're not talking over one another
06:43so you all can actually debate. Now, since I'm not sure what this has to do with the amendment
06:49that we're talking about. It has everything to do with the amendment. It does not. But
06:54you want to continue. You and I disagree. July 24th, no matter. I'm sorry, Representative Hunter.
07:02Can I finish my answer? Yes, you can. Please do that, sir. So for 17 to 18 days, you left. Now
07:09you're getting on the microphone saying, why didn't I involve you? Well, I wasn't going across
07:14state lines to find you. I was here. Hold it. Let me finish. You want to be fair. Let me finish.
07:23You opened up the questions. You own the walkout. You said you did that. But don't come into this body
07:32and say we didn't include you. You left us for 18 days. And that's wrong. Members, well, they applauded my
07:43opponent a while ago. So please give me equal treatment. So, Representative Hunter, thank you for
07:52laying out that. But what you didn't lay out, and I hope you will let me finish
07:57responding or answering my question. On July 24th, there was a public hearing in Austin, correct?
08:06I believe so, yes. On July 26th, there was a public hearing in Houston, correct? That Saturday, yes.
08:15And on July 28th, there was a hearing in Arlington, Texas, correct? That evening in Arlington.
08:21Okay. When did the maps drop? I believe the maps were filed Wednesday.
08:27So, Wednesday, and then you had a hearing the next day with people who could not weigh
08:33in on a yay or a nay. It's my understanding those maps were not released until after the
08:42public hearings. Is that true or false? Well, you're wrong because the hearing was Friday,
08:47not Thursday. We had several hearings before the maps were dropped. Would you agree with that?
08:50Ma'am, you just said the map was dropped, and then we heard it. The fact is, it was filed
08:57that Wednesday. The hearing was Friday. Let's get the specifics down. And I've answered everything
09:06to you in committee that I'm answering here. Tuesday, after the Arlington hearing, the chairman
09:13of the committee asked me if I would present the bill to this body, which I said yes. Number
09:21two, I did not see or get the information until that Tuesday. And then on Wednesday, we filed
09:29the bill. Representative Hunter, let's be clear. There were public hearings held without any maps.
09:42Is that true? Yes. Just last, before the bill vote out, those maps were dropped at that time,
09:57correct? Because it was voted out on that Saturday morning. The bill was voted on Saturday morning.
10:05Just the other day, we had a hearing where you changed some additional districts.
10:11The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose? Can I request an extension
10:18of time? Members, there's a motion for an extension of time. This is a record for vote. This is
10:23the first one. Clerk, ring the bell. Service 100 voting aye.
10:26Have all members voted? Trostler voting aye. Corwin voting aye. King voting aye. Have all members voted?
10:41Have all members voted? 134 ayes and three nays. The motion for extend time prevails.
10:48Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is Gervin Hawkins for a purpose? Will the gentleman yield for questions?
10:53Yes. He yields. So we didn't have maps, but we had public hearings. So people really wasn't
11:00able to see what was going on, correct? I just want to be clear. There was no map at that time.
11:05Okay. Now, did you look at any racial discrimination during these maps in terms of the gerrymandering
11:15and the way you're cut and packed and cracked and jacked and everything else?
11:19You know, to respond to you, every time somebody doesn't like redistricting, they use the word
11:23pack and crack. I use the word U.S. Supreme Court rucho. And that's where the problem is, I have
11:32with your statement. I don't agree with you. Number two, we didn't have to have public hearings.
11:41You keep bringing that up. We didn't have to. The chairman of the committee decided and we included
11:50information from those hearings in the filed map. So I appreciate that you keep saying that
11:59no map was there, but when the map was filed, we had that plus 12 hour hearing and we voted
12:07that Saturday. So you're correct on that.
12:10Mr. Chairman, you know, you would say that the maps didn't or no public hearings would have to be held.
12:18But question, would you believe it would be a great process to include the public in a way that they could
12:28see what's going on? Or do we want to do the things in the cloak of darkness here?
12:33Well, you've been gone in the cloak of darkness for 18 days.
12:36That's not germane to what we're talking about. No, it is germane to what you said.
12:39No, it's not. I could have public input while you were gone. You prevented this body from acting.
12:45You were gone. So you keep interrupting me. The merits of the bill, sir. The merits of the bill.
12:51No. Members, please try not to talk over one another so everybody can hear your debate.
12:59We've got close to 30 million people in the state of Texas.
13:05I'm talking to a representative here. Please, sir. My other question is, do you believe the state of Texas is required to create and maintain minority opportunity districts?
13:20I think the state of Texas should use every effort to follow the Voting Rights Act, Rucho, Petaway, and all the laws. And the law firm told me that they have.
13:35Tell me your position on creation of coalition districts.
13:41Well, according to Petaway, which I believe was 2024, which has now changed the law, Fifth Circuit, says coalition districts can no longer be used as Voting Rights Act Section 2 violations.
13:58And it also says there's not a requirement that you have to use coalition. So what's happened since 2021, you have maps that people are in that were using old terminology, old law.
14:13And now you have a brand new set of law that came in. And as Mr. Spiller said, it overturned the compost case, which basically was the law being used. So today this map is taking those in factor.
14:29So you don't believe or do you believe that this redistricting plan eliminates any minority opportunity districts?
14:36No, I think we've created four out of five new seats or Hispanic majority. I would say that's great. That doesn't ensure that a political party wins them. But the Hispanic four out of five Hispanic majority out of those new districts, that's a pretty strong message. And it's good.
14:59And it's good. Representative, would you answer my question? Was there any minority?
15:03I thought I did. It's yes or no, right? What is yes or no?
15:08Did you eliminate any minority districts? Was any minority districts eliminated?
15:14Did political performance change districts? Yes. Did they change? Did, for example, some in one area become Hispanic over African-American?
15:28Did you eliminate any minority districts? Yes.
15:32I really don't understand your question. Did we change minority districts?
15:35Okay, well, we'll move on. We'll move on.
15:36Did we change districts in the state of Texas? Yes. Political performance was used.
15:40All right. So are you aware of any analysis conducted to assess the impact of the redistricting plan, voting power, and or is my understanding some economic engines? Did you look at that at all?
15:57Did Todd Hunter look at that? The law firm did. I've answered that. And I don't understand your economic engines. I've heard that. That I've seen in no criteria in redistricting. Political performance I have, but an economic engine.
16:15For example, in the committee hearing on Monday, they brought that up. And I thought if you have a great economic engine, I think Liberty County going into number nine is a pretty darn good engine. But that's not a required requirement under the redistricting.
16:33Question for you, Representative Hunter. You know, inclusion, we think is important, particularly when you're in the states so large as Texas and so diverse, and you want to be able to have all levels of input. Would you agree with that?
16:47I think it's a great goal. Yes. So if that's the case, would you pull down this bill? No. And look for additional public comment? No, we've had the public comment. We've had 18 days of gap. I think we're ready to go.
17:05But not on this map. But not on this map. We haven't had public comment. Oh, yes, we've had public comment. You can take the public comment from the last, the first session. We've already said that. That was incorporated in this bill.
17:19So we revised the maps yesterday. So the public has not had a chance to. But no, it was on Monday.
17:28All right. Monday, whatever day you say. But public haven't had a chance to look at it.
17:33What? I think everybody in the world that knows how to use district viewer, social media, gets on the computers, I can see the map.
17:45Are you aware? There's a lot of material in this map that was included in the prior map. So no, I don't.
17:54You said a lot, but not all, correct? No, there's changes. I absolutely told you that.
17:58We affected 12 new districts to increase political performance. Absolutely.
18:04So are you aware that districts 9 and 33 are no longer African-American voter-dominated districts in the new map?
18:11Congressional district 9 is going to be Hispanic, 50.15 percent, and African-American 11.33 percent.
18:30What was the other one?
18:3233.
18:32Hispanic in Congressional District 33 is 38.35, and by the way, the black is from 19.45.
18:50So did these maps do eliminate two African-American-leaning districts?
18:55I'm not sure that they eliminate, because I think anybody can win any election, but did those demographics I just read change?
19:06The answer is yes.
19:07So there is your racism right there, correct?
19:10I disagree.
19:12Okay.
19:12And, you know, look, race is a discussion factor, and so is political performance, and all of this can be used, but let's not use it in a negative.
19:28I respect you, and I hope you respect me, but we may disagree, but all these factors are looked at.
19:38The problem is we've had new court cases that provide new elements to the redrawing and redistricting, and that's what we're following.
19:49Representative Hunter, I do respect you tremendously, and I respect this body, but what I don't respect is an obvious racist move on what you're attempting to do, but...
20:02We disagree 100 percent.
20:04When you lose two African-American-leaning seats, then that tells you there is a race issue going on.
20:13And Rucho gave the exact same argument about...
20:19Rucho, Bucho, Rucho.
20:20I wouldn't make fun of the U.S. Supreme Court, Representative.
20:25I don't think that's right.
20:26Let's not demean the process.
20:28You know, I'm listening to your comments, and I haven't shot at you, but is race a factor?
20:37Yes, but I'm not going to use it in a negative in our discussion.
20:42My final question, sir.
20:43Are you aware of any concerns raised by community groups or individuals regarding the potential impact of the new map on minority representation in these districts?
20:56Have you heard from the public at all in those districts?
21:00Have I heard from everybody in all the districts?
21:03Your question?
21:03No.
21:03Any community groups?
21:05Anybody?
21:05Yes.
21:06Yes, I've heard from them.
21:08Time has expired.
21:10Thank you, Representative Hunter, for answering my questions.
Be the first to comment