JOE STRAUS: House will come to order. Members, please register. Quorum is present. The House and gallery, please rise for the invocation. The Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Members, join me in prayer. Our Heavenly Father, we give thanks for our government, for all the men and women who are here in this chamber today. Throw out your spirit upon them, and make your words known to us. Cause us to be men and women of integrity, obedience, concern for other people; and our people may be lead by quiet and peaceful lives. Let wisdom in our hearts, let the decisions preserve us, let understanding keep us to deliver us from the evil ways. Make our hands and our ears attentive to godly counsel to do what is right in your sight. Let the nation and this state remember, and return to do your first works, setting our hearts and souls to seek the Lord. Humble ourselves, praying and turning from wicked ways. Then hear us, O Lord, and forgive us our sins. Send rain to heal our land. Open our eyes and turn us from darkness to light. Soften our hearts that are hardened through these difficult and sinful times. Deliver us from all deceitfulness. Father, you have been long suffering with us, not willing that any should perish but all should repent. Rise up a standard of this nation and of this state. Cause the rain of your soul to flood our lands, that your work will be mindful to us. Rise up in intersession to the nation and pull down the stronghold over the land. And let the glory of the Lord prevail. All these things we ask in your precious name. Amen.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren to lead us in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members and guests, please, join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States and the Great State of Texas.
(Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag, and pledge to the Texas flag.)
JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Ritter because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Geren. Excuse Representative Anchia because of important business, on the motion of Representative Strama. Excuse Representative Lucio because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Alvarado. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Please excuse Representative Keffer because of important business, on the motion of Representative Chisum. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Please excuse Representative Hughes because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Zedler. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Lyne for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: I'd like to suspend the rules -- all necessary rules and unnecessary, to consider a motion; HR102.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
CLERK: HR102 by Lyne. Congratulating the baseball team of Rider High School in Wichita Falls on winning the UIL 4A state championship.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Lyne.
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: Thank you. Members, especially those of you from the Corpus Christi area, I don't want you to -- you know, I don't want you to feel left out on this, but last Friday night -- First let me -- Wichita Falls Rider Raiders won the State Baseball Championship, 4A state baseball championship. And, from what I understand, it was one heck of a game from everybody's standpoint. Some amazing plays being made where people stood up on both sides congratulating great plays. I want to congratulate Corpus Christi Cal Allen for being there, it's not easy to get to a state championship. It's even harder to win one. Rider was here last year and was beat by Brenham, as Representative Kolkhorst let us know last time. This time we beat Brenham, and went on to beat Cal Allen. It was great day. It was a great day for the Raiders, it was a marvelous baseball team, and it was a marvelous game. So I'm here just to congratulate the Rider Raiders, and pass this resolution on to them.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Congratula tions, Rider Raiders. The Cubs are in mourning, but it did set the record for most appearances at the state tournament.
REPRESENTATIVE LANHAM LYNE: Go away. Go away. Go away. Don't rain on my parade. Move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representatives Hunter, Scott and Torres move to add all members's names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Excuse representative Woolley for today and the remainder of the week because of business in her district, on the motion of Representative Kleinschmidt. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Madam Doorkeeper?
MADAM DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, there is a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
JOE STRAUS: Admit the messenger.
SENATE MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House the Senate has taken the following actions, the Senate has passed the following measures: SB30. Shapiro. Relating to the state virtual school network. SB31, Shapiro. Relating to the guarantee of open enrollment charter schools bonds by the permanent school fund. SCR 1, Carona. In memory of the Honorable John Nesbitt Leadham. The Senate has refused to concur on the House amendments to the following measures and requests the appointment of a conference committee to adjust the differences between the two Houses: SB 1. Senate conferees; Duncan, chair. Deuell, Hinojosa, Shapiro, Williams. SB 2. Senate conferees; Ogden, chair. Duncan, Hinojosa, Nelson, williams. SB 7. Senate conferees; Nelson, chair. Carona, Deuell, Hinojosa, Shapiro.
JOE STRAUS: Thank you, Representative Dutton. Members, we're about to go on the calendar. Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 13. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB13 by Kolkhorst. Relating to the Medicaid program and alternate methods of providing health services to low-income persons in this state.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. This is the 1115 global waiver that requests -- sends a request to HHHC to seek this from EMS. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 13? If not, the question occurs on final passage of House Bill 13. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 100 ayes and 40 nays, House Bill 13 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 18. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB18 by Eissler. Relating to elementary class size limits in public schools.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, House Bill 18 was the class size limit that we made one change to. And I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 18? If not, the question occurs on final passage of House Bill 18. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Showing Representative Murphy voting aye. Have all voted? Being 95 ayes, 44 nays, House Bill 18 is finally passed. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 4. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: SB 4 by Seliger. Relating to the composition of the congressional districts for the State of Texas.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the congressional redistricting map by Senator Seliger. Move passage. I need -- There is a perfecting amendment, then we can move passage and be done with this.
JOE STRAUS: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Solomons.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you. Members, this amendment responds to some concerns from the public and Representative Menendez, at House the and Senate hearings on the bill. Representative Menendez specifically asked us to increase the SSVRs in District 20 over 55 percent, we were able to increase it to 56.3 percent. We also increased the HCBAP of District 35 to 51.9 percent. The SSVR of District 23 to 54.8 percent. While we were doing this, we were able to maintain the performing nature of all the other Hispanic majority districts. And it's acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Members, there's an amendment to the amendment being drafted. Members, if you have amendments to the amendments, please get them drafted now. Representative Solomon sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? There is objection. Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: Thank you, members. I appreciate your time. But this is -- this amendment to the amendment doesn't mean anything to anybody except those of you who now have counties. But this is absolutely what is tragic about redistricting in State of Texas today, and perhaps throughout the world. And I realize that when we draw congressional districts there's no laws against splitting counties. But this amendment to the amendment, and it may be good for the democrats and it may be good for the republicans -- I don't think I like the one that was withdrawn, either. But the amendment to the amendment that Mr. Solomons has; and I don't know who's it good for and I don't know where it came from, whether it's the democrats or the republicans or MAL -- or I don't know where it came from. But what it does, it takes Maverick County, which is a county that I represent and obviously not congress, and I don't care if the delegation has all signed off on it; but when you go and you take -- and you split off the bottom twenty percent of (inaudible) County, and you take and you split off the bottom half of -- basically it looks like they probably split the City of Eagle Pass, Texas, in half between two congressional districts. And they split another small county over there. Do you know, there's something very, very wrong with that picture; ladies and gentlemen. When we do that to the men and women that live and vote in these districts and we force them to be in two congressional districts like that, I mean they split Travis County, Mrs. Howard, you know, into five pieces. But Travis County has six or seven or 800,000 people in it, or how many. But Maverick County has 54,000 people in it, and never been -- It's just terrible. But, anyway -- I object to the amendment, I object to the whole bill for that matter. My point is that you go in there and you destroy communities of interest whenever you split up a county like Maverick County and Eagle Pass, Texas, you split it into two; you go into (inaudible) county and you split that into two like that, and there's just something very, very wrong with that. And I understand that congressional districts have to be down to, they don't give you any deviation and that type of thing. But there's got to be a better way to do this, ladies and gentlemen, than to go in there and split small communities of interest like that just to satisfy a congressional delegation; I suppose. We don't know where the amendment -- where the amendment to the amendment came from. So, anyway, I object to it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons to close.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, let me -- let me just once again respond that we tried to make some improvements in certain areas, and I understand the concern. Anytime you break up a county you try not to do it very much, but we needed the numbers; basically, to respond to another member's request. And, quite frankly, it made the district and the map stronger, that we're able to increase in District 64 -- I mean, I'm sorry, in District 20 we increased the SSVRs over 55 percent. And we were able to increase it to 56.3 percent by this amendment, and we increased the HCVAP of the District 35 to 51.9 percent and the SSVR of District 23 to 54.8 percent. We needed to sort of do that, and try to maintain the performing nature of the Hispanic majority districts in south Texas. And, I'm sorry, we had to take and divide Webb County, but we really needed to do that. And it's not that you can't do it under redistricting, you try not to do it wherever you can; but we sort of really needed to do that. And we think it improves the map considerably. We talked to other members on the committee, they believe it helps the map. Even the Hispanic --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speak er?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I certainly do.
JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Chairman Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: You know I voted against committee plan coming out of our committee?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Right. We're trying to fix that.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: And I have concerns about the overall plan. But this amendment is actually an improvement from what came out of committee in some very specific ways. Can you -- Because these numbers are important, can you restate how you improved the Spanish surname registered voters for Districts 35, 20, in San Antonio; in the heart of San Antonio, and 23?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Right well, I know for some of the members it goes over their head on -- because it's blinding numbers, it's blinding numbers to me. But, at the end of the day, it really is something that improves those districts. And we needed to really do that for District 20 primarily. But, by doing so, we increased the SSVR, Spanish surname voting registration, of District 20 to over 55 percent. And to do that we were able also to increase it -- Well, he had asked us, Representative Menendez had asked us to do that. We were able to increase it to 56.3 percent and we also increased the Hispanic and voting age population of District 35 to 51.9 percent, an SSVR of District 23 to 54.8 percent. That really bolstered up all those districts considerably for south Texas. And that's really what the amendment does. And it really was an improvement to what we passed out of committee, especially considering some of the concerns you and others had.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: All right. I want to thank you for making these improvements.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you. I appreciate it. Members, I move passage of the amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Solomons sends up an amendment. It's on the adoption of the Solomons amendment. Clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote nay. Showing Representative Martinez Fischer voting no. Showing Representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? There being 95 ayes and 46 nays, the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Geren.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. What this is, this is a swap between Congressional District 12 and 26. And it makes downtown Fort Worth whole. It puts the entire city of West Lake, both the Denton County part and the Tarrant County part in the same district. And it unites the black communities in Fort Worth. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members this is Representative Kuempel's plan 172. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Kuempel.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kuempel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, my intentions with this amendment were to put Guadeloupe County together and bring it into a like-minded district. I've had overwhelming -- of the majority of the constituents in Sagene and several -- everybody in Guadeloupe County want to move into, like I said, a like-minded district. After -- From my understanding what Mr. Solomons perfecting amendment did, this will not hold up legally. So, with that, I will withdraw it.
JOE STRAUS: Amendment is withdrawn. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, this is Plan 152 by Representative Hughes.
CLERK: Amendment by Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you, members. Representative Hughes asked me to do this because he's delayed. He's at a funeral for a fallen soldier from Wood County. And this does affect Wood County. This amendment moves the City of Mineola from District 1 to District 5, which is currently in District 5. And the amendment is acceptable to me as the author.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Solomons sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, we're on Representative Riddle's Plan 153. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Riddle.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Riddle.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, this is an amendment to my amendment and it makes a statistical correction in making the numbers zero out for the amendment. Move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Members, this is an amendment to the amendment, Plan 176.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Riddle.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Riddle.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Apparently, I jumped the gun on that just a little bit. Again, this is the amendment to my amendment and it makes the statistical correction in making it zero out. I believe that it is agreeable to the author. Move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Riddle sends up an amendment to the amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Riddle amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Representative Riddle.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment keeps approximately 385-acres of undeveloped land in Congressional District 2, instead of moving it into Congressional District 8; as proposed in the new plan. This affects about 28 people. We've been able to zero that out. I believe that it is agreeable to the author. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment, Mrs. Riddle and I discussed this amendment last week. I didn't seem to have a lot of objection but, apparently, there is some concern now that has been developing over the last several days by some members, as well as the congressional delegation who is involved with this. This has to do with -- and Mrs. Riddle can speak on behalf of Congressman Poe, but this also right now is currently Congressman Brady's district, who was a former member here and, quite frankly, they haven't been able to resolve this. This has to do with the Exxon world headquarters. And it is basically some undeveloped land, but it deals with very personal things between these two members. So I'm going leave it to the will of the House, in once sense, because I'm going to move to table this amendment; because I think it's over-reaching by Congressman Poe, and we had gone out of our way -- excuse me, to listen to all of the incumbents as far as their districts, tried to accommodate where we should; some places we couldn't do that. And no congressional member got everything they wanted. And I think this is over-reaching and I'm going to move to table and we'll see what happens. But there has been some concern over the last few days over this particular amendment. And I'll be happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Chairman, thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Fletcher?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: Chairman Solomons, when I saw the map I'm personal friends with Ted Poe and Congressman Brady. But this particular little tail that comes down into Harris County, that comes over and takes in that 300-acres that has 28 voters in it; it is a little by the of a over-reach, as you indicated, to come all the way over into Harris County into Montgomery County. Congressman Brady represents all of east Texas and all of Montgomery County, and to come down into our county and take 300-acre piece of land with 28 voters; I think that's over-reaching, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: So you're --
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: I'm against that happening, and my question to you is you're sitting there telling the House --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I -- I just think it's gotten to the point where -- I spent last week and yesterday and today, and you would be absolutely surprised; well, I don't think any member of this House would be absolutely surprised in the amount of nickel and diming that's going on in these districts. And, quite frankly, I respect your opinion. I respect Congressman Brady, I respect Congressman Poe; I'm going to leave it to the will of the House, but I'm going at least try to make a motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: But at least let me say one thing to you, because I know you're wanting to give the message to the people in this House. I cover the whole northwest part of Harris County --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: This comes down under me and into Representative Riddle's district.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: And as I've already indicated, it's 300-acres. It's got 28 voters in it, and Congressman Brady represents east Texas and Montgomery County. And to come down into our county, below my district, into her district; to pick up that headquarters, it is pretty obvious what they're doing. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: You're welcome.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Mr. Spea ker?
JOE STRAUS: Representative Harless, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I do yield.
JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Mr. Chai rman, can we talk about this district as it was drawn originally? Congressman Poe's district, in the last congressional -- the current seat.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Can I get a little quiet?
JOE STRAUS: Members, can we have order?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: The current seat encompassed all of Chambers County, Liberty, or most of Chambers, Liberty, Polk County. During the redistricting negotiations Congressman Poe came down here. I introduced him to you. He visited with you a few times. His only concern was that he would like to be in Harris County and not to go all the way out to Beaumont and the Louisiana border. And we have worked with him a number of times to make sure that his district -- that he was happy with the district. The other thing is there was some comments by Representative Fletcher that Brady had Polk, or had Montgomery County, and none of Harris County. But that's not actually factual. He has a significant part of the the northern part of Harris County as well.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: And we've made a lot of concessions to make sure that they both were served properly.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: We tried to listen to everybody, the congressional delegations, the members of this body; and I know some of this is seemingly a nickel and dime deal. But, at the end of the day, Congressman Brady was a former member here. We're not changing anything. We went out of our ways to help Congressman Poe a number of times, to make sure the districts worked, the numbers worked. Congressional delegation seemed to be okay. We're trying to make sure the voters are okay with where we're putting things, and we just tried to do our best job. And, you know, we're nickel and diming today. This morning, over trying these guys trying to do this. So whatever happens, happens. But I think that I've changed the map enough with Congressman Poe. I would prefer to have a motion to table, table the amendment and hopefully the will of the body will decide that as they see fit. But I appreciate your help on this.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Mr. Chai rman, I'm sticking with you. And I have an email, I'll be happy to show any members, from Representative Poe last week; when he emailed me while he was in Iraq, when he said that this area was not in his district and he'd like to have it back. But if it did not work out, that was fine.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to move to table.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Riddle.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Thank you members. As Senfronia frequently says, she talks about the little dogs and the big dogs. I don't have a map large enough for you to see, but if you could see this you would see that Congressman Brady, who I respect greatly, has 99.9 percent of all of the district north of Harris County. Upon a fraction of what he has is coming into Harris County. And it is taking this 300-acres that was Ted Poe's. And, yes, I applaud Burt and his -- and his committee for all that they've done. But this is in my district, this is in my county, and this is important to my district and my county that Ted Poe have this 300-acres. It is a power grab, in my opinion, for Congressman Brady to come in and grab this. This affects 28 voters. We zeroed it out, we've taken care of it. And yes, Mr. Speaker, I will yield.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Will the lady yield?
JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Riddle, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I would be glad to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Than k you. Mrs. Riddle, did -- have the congressman signed off on either of these plans?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I found out this morning that the congressman did. He was pleased with the way that his district was being drawn but, it is my understanding that he did not know that this 300-acres where Exxon Mobil is going to be moving was taken out of his district.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And you mean Ted, the congressman you're speaking of is Ted Poe, right?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: And it was given to Kevin Brady.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Right . Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Basically, Kevin Brady is coming a little bit into north Harris County and grabbing what I consider the crown jewel, that is 300-acres where Exxon Mobil is going to be moving.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And where is the rest of Mr. Brady's district?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Brady's district goes into Montgomery County, Leon County; it goes all the way north.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And that's the only part that is in Harris County, that little 28 people?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: He's got these 300-acre is there, and just a little bit more of a sliver. I'm not taking Congressman Brady out of the little bit that he is in north Harris County. I feel like those folks in north Harris County lose their voice.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: So yours is just take those 28 people?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: But the 300-acres is what this is about.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And that's the 28 people, and the future home of Exxon Mobil corporate office?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: And for him to come in into Harris County and grab that, I see as a power grab. It's in my district and in my county, and I think it's flat wrong. And that is why I have this amendment. This is about the big dog and the small dog. And, right now, I think Senfronia would agree; we're the little dog in this. But we're still scrapping and fighting. And the reason is because we're doing what is right for our county, what is right for our constituents -- my constituents.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Well, thank you. I agree.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Thank you, Representative Dutton.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order, the lady's time has expired. Mr. Eissler? Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I request permission for the Committee on Public Education to meet while the House is in session at 11:15. That's twenty minutes from now. June 14th, 2011, in 1W14, that's the Ag Museum, to consider Senate Bill 8.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
CLERK: The Committee on Public Education will meet at 11:15 a.m. on June the 14th, 2011, in room 1W.14, the Ag Museum. This will be a formal melting to consider SB 8.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Riddle sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. This is on the the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Showing Representative Solomons voting aye. Representative Riddle voting no. Have all voted? Showing Representative Menendez voting no. There being 77 ayes and 54 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, this is Representative Johnson's Plan 157. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Amendment is withdrawn. We're on Plan 168 by Representative Alvarado. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Alvarado.
JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Christian because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Flynn. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I offer this amendment because I believe that Senate Bill 4 does not accurately reflect Texas's growth or its diverse population. In Harris County the latino population grew by over 550,000 people. That, in itself, is almost the size of a new congressional district. With that in mind, this amendment creates a second latino opportunity district in Harris County, while maintaining its three current minority districts. Both Districts 29 and the 36 are completely in Harris county and have a Hispanic voting age population of over 50 percent. While the SSVR in the districts are slightly under 50 percent, both have proven to elect latino voters preferred candidate of choice. As the Department of Justice guidelines clearly state, there is no specific demographic percentage, no magic number that determines the effectiveness. It's a function of different factors such as turn out and election results. This map does not pair any incumbents. District 29, which is the current latino opportunity district in Harris County remains anchored in north Houston and picks up the growing latino communities of west and southwest Houston, Harris County. Districts 9 and 18 remain as coalition districts that are currently -- that are currently would like to remain represented by African American congress members.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Would Representative Alvarado yield for just a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Representat ive Alvarado, what you're in essence trying to do is increase the voting participation of latinos by creating another opportunity -- latino opportunity district; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: That's correct. As you know, in Harris County the latino populations just not anchored in two parts of Houston like it used to be. But the latino growth is throughout Houston and Harris County. And with this new growth in south and southwest Houston, you are able to create another opportunity district.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: And the constitution and the Bill of Rights would -- and the Voting Rights Act would allow us to do that, because of the nature of Harris County and the nature of the reasons why we still fall under Section 35 and Section 2 of the the voting rights act, and have to get preclearance. So your amendment is a good amendment, particularly for those folks that have been disenfranchised in the northwest part of the county and the southwest part of the county, where there's a lot of growth of latinos in those areas; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: That's correct. And as I mentioned earlier, with the growth being over 550,000 latino, just in Harris County alone; again that in itself could be almost the size of a congressional district. So I think this amendment is necessary because it does -- it gives another opportunity. We're not asking for a sure thing, but latino voters have a candidate of their choice. I think this amendment reflects that. Again, I don't think SB 4 reflects -- properly reflects the growth and diversity in Harris County.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: And because -- And you and I know the current representative, congressperson that represents the Congressional 29, because you and I have both worked for him.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Is that person latino?
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: No, he's not. Representative Walle, that's Congressman Gene Green. And latino voters have, for the last two decades, re elected him. He is the candidate of their choice. And that's all we're asking them for here.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Right. And that's the keyword, is the candidate of their choice for the latino community to come together as a community of interest, because they've lived, they go to church together, they go to the HEB, to the Kroger, to the Fiesta, the Food Towns in our neighborhoods, to La Michocanas that are all over this city. And for us it's just having the opportunity to elect somebody of our choice.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: That's correct. And that's what the purpose of this amendment is. I think it's what we should all be striving for, which is a fair, equal opportunity to -- for voters to elect a candidate of their choice, regardless of political party.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: I thank you for your questions and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. White, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Yes, I have a question of the lady.
JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Alvarado, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: For a question, Mr. Speaker. I highly respect what you're doing, Representative, but I'm looking at your plan here. I'm kind of curious on why it divided -- Tyler County is only about 20,000 folks. I respect what you're trying to do, but I think in a lot of these plans that come up someone is trying to do one thing and I think we all need to be quite respectful of a county of about 20,000 and the communities of interests in that aspect.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: And I appreciate -- I know where you're coming from.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: I live in Tyler county.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Yeah, you are from that area. And it does split Districts 2 and 8 in Tyler County. Again, it was necessary to accommodate what we were trying to do in Harris County.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Okay. All right.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: I know that's kind of a concern to you.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Well, you kind of got the city over there and the rest of the county some other operations, thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Okay. Thank you. I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer to speak on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you Mr. Speaker and members. I just wanted to state my support for the Alvarado amendment. I will say that what it demonstrates is something that we will be doing later with some subsequent statewide amendments. But this demonstrates that if you wanted to draw a minority opportunity district in Harris County you could. I can tell you personally, I'm concerned about the adjustments to SSVR and neighboring districts. I know that's not the author's intent. I know this is clearly to show a demonstration, to state the case that you can do it. So that's why I would rise to speak in favor of the amendment. And for those of you who feel the same way, I'd be happy to articulate that in a statement of the vote; if you want to join me on this. But I do believe this demonstrates very clearly that if you wanted to draw a minority opportunity district in Harris County you could. And so, for that, I will support the Alvarado amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative White to speak in opposition of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Yeah. I'm speaking in opposition to this amendment. I respect what Representative Alvarado is trying to accomplish here. I think there's some room to get this accomplished. But I think the folks in Tyler County, where I represent and where I live, don't understand why, to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish in Harris County; why that results in splitting Tyler County, which is only twenty thousand residents. So I think when we do these maps we need to maybe have a little bit more advisement. And I would like to urge you to not support this amendment. Thank you very much.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. I appreciate -- I do appreciate everything Mrs. Alvarado has done for me during the session, except this. She's put forth, in going over my -- in attempting to draw a new Hispanic district in Harris County we've looked at. And it this map retrogresses, actually, District 29, Gene Green's district. And in the benchmark map District 29 has an SSVR of 52.6 percent, and a HCVAP of 56 percent. In Mrs. Alvarado's map, District 29's SSVR actually drops to 35.5 percent, and its HCVAP, which is Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population, to only 38.6 percent. Mrs. Alvarado does not create a new Hispanic opportunity district, because her new district 36 only has an SSVR of 42.5 percent and a HCVAP of 41.1 percent. So, in reality, even though it appears that she's trying to create another Hispanic district, she creates one less in the map; one less Hispanic majority district in the committee map. And, therefore, because she's creating one less Hispanic majority district in the committee map as a whole, I respectfully move to table this amendment. And, yes, I do yield.
JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Alvarado, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you, Representative Solomons. Thank you for your work on this. You know I've had some strong opposition to your map. As it relates to Harris County these are -- again, as the Department of justice guidelines state, there is no specific demographic percentage. There's no magic number that determines effectiveness. It's a function of different factors such as turn out and election results. These are coalition districts. Again, I'm stressing that these are opportunity districts. And I think that your plan, SB 4, does not create a coalition district in Houston, and does not create a latino opportunity district as this amendment does.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Well, I appreciate your opinion about that, and I know you tried to have your input throughout the entire process. I just can't support a map that actually creates one less Hispanic district in the committee map as a whole, just because of what you're trying to do in Houston. Let me just tell the members real quickly now -- and this was brought up in the committee as well, in helping determine a compliance with the Voting Rights Act, Sections 2 and 5, you generally look at Hispanic total population; you look at Hispanic voting age population, and the two most important; you look at SSVR, Spanish Surname Voting Populations. And you look at Hispanic Voting Age Populations. And when you look at the black compliance for districts, if you look at black total population and black voting age population. And I know what Mrs. Alvarado is trying to do but, at the end of the day, and I hate to say that again, second time, Mr. Smithee.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Third time.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Third time, all right. When you look at this, we have tried to increase and to deal with Hispanic majority districts in the map. And her -- in her amendment it creates one less and I have to move to table. And I apologize for that in one way, because she's my desk mate and she's been a great member of the committee. But this amendment really destroys the committee map that we've worked on so hard along with the Senate on SB 4.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Representa tive Solomons?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: The HVAC in both districts is over 60 percent. And if you were to combine the percentage of African American and Hispanic in the 29th it's 75.6 percent. In the 36th District it's 72.6. Again, stressing that these are coalition districts. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I appreciate it. Members I'm going to move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Will the gentleman yield for a quick question?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Solomons, do you have a question?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Yes, of course.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Burt, I wish -- would you please acknowledge today -- I mean you're throwing the numbers out, talking about SSVR and these different things. These are arbitrary numbers that you're coming up with. They are not the gold standard. And what you just said a second ago about the SSVR being the most important thing, that is it is not --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: It is one of the important elements. It is not the most important.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: It's one think that's looked at and it's not the legal standard, by any stretch of the imagination. Just because a district is not 50 percent SSVR does not mean it's not a Hispanic district. And if we're not careful, what's going on -- and what I think that you and the republican party may be trying to do is use these numbers in order to do things that are illegal. And we need make sure that everyone understands that that SVVR number is just one thing that is looked at, that there are other factors that are to be taken into consideration. The district that Carol laid out is sufficiently Hispanic to elect -- for the community to elect the candidate of their choice. And that's what we need to be looking at.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I appreciate that. If anyone believes it's the most important element, and it is not. And it is one of several important elements to comply with the Voting Rights Act. And once again, thank you, members. I move to table.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Alvarado sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Solomons voting aye. Representative Alvarado voting no. Have all voted? There being 94 ayes and 47 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, this is Representative Johnson's Plan 157. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Johnson.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Johnson.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I have an amendment to my amendment and the amendment to the amendment basically undoes some changes that were made to the 5rh Congressional District in my original amendment. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Members, this is Plan 177.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Johnson.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Johnson.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, again, this amendment to the amendment undoes some changes that were made to the 5th Congressional District in my original amendment. And I do believe it's acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Yeah, just so the members know, it makes some minor changes in Dallas County and will be acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Johnson sends up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. We're back on the Johnson amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Thank you Mr. Speaker -- The amendment as amended is also acceptable to the author, and it basically takes a couple precincts in east Dallas that were in Congressional District 30, that were moved to Congressional District 32; under the proposed map, and puts them back in Congressional District 30. And I believe it's acceptable to the author as well.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Johnson sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, this is Plan 121. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, thank you very much. I wanted to lay out my plan that I'm calling the Fair Texas Plan. The Fair Texas Plan takes into consideration the fact that the State of Texas, in the last ten years, most of the growth; 90 percent of the growth, in fact; has been Hispanic, African American and Asian American. And also I wanted to point out, too, that the plan that I have created, it makes it to where the democratic and republican ratios of these seats are based on what I'm calling the republican doctrine back in 2003. If you remember, when the republicans did the mid decade redistricting, one of the things that they said was that the seats should be based upon the statewide election results. Under this plan, if you look at the one that I'm laying out, about -- and you take into consideration the fact that Barack Obama and Bill White roughly got 33, 34 percent of the vote, that's how many of the seats would be democratic and then the rest would be republican. And there would be a line based on statewide election results. One of the biggest problems that I have with Representative Solomons' map, also, if you look at the metroplex. The metroplex has 2.1 million latino and African American residents. Under the Solomons plan they are mainly packed into one district, which is illegal. Under this plan, a new Hispanic district is created in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, and African American district. Representative Giddings, you may recall the article in D Magazine that just came out that was just released yesterday, that talked about the fast growing African American area in Dallas-Fort Worth; how some people from around the country are calling Dallas-Fort Worth home. We need to make sure that that growth is recognized. We -- This state should do the right thing and have a new Hispanic seat in the metroplex and a new African American seat. It's the right thing to do. And I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. Once again, Mr. Veasey, Ms. Alvarado put forth his plan, his vision. Unfortunately, I don't believe it reflects the input we've received from the majority of the current congressional members of the Texas House, who passed along the views of their constituents. And I know -- Mr. Veasey's plan unnecessarily pairs three sets of current congressmen, Congressman Canseco, Gonzalez, (inaudible). Splits the cities of Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, Dallas, Irving, Farmers Branch, Carrollton and (inaudible) Springs. Most large cities actually do get split, but we tried to avoid splitting small cities wherever possible. In north Texas, districts keep Arlington, Grand Prairie, (inaudible) Farmers Branch, Carrollton and (inaudible) Springs all as whole. But then there is counties, and it also does -- it also does not create a new Hispanic majority district in north Texas. The HCVAP of Representative Veasey's District 34 is only 45.6 percent, and his SSVR is only 41.8 percent. And I respectfully -- I appreciate Mr. Veasey's hard work on the committee, but I respectfully move to table the amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey to close.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Once again, members, let me make something clear, that the SSVR number that Burt just threw out is very arbitrary. Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's a Hispanic district. The north Texas district is sufficiently Hispanic for the community, for the Hispanic community, importantly, to elect the candidate of their choice. Representative Solomons's plan splits a lot more cities than I think that my plan does. And the other thing, too, to remember, is that the incumbents that he just named all have a district to run into. And, as a matter of fact, the districts that I created are actually better that, I think, probably are better districts for them than under his plan. So I wanted to make sure that members are clear about that.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Veasey sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Solomons voting aye. Representative Veasey voting no. Have all voted? There being 93 ayes, 49 nays, the motion to table prevails. This is Plan 142 by Alonzo. The following amendment, clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Good morning, members. Members, today I rise to talk about an issue that is very, very dear to my heart. It's an issue that we've been dealing with all session. It's an issue that we've been dealing with all last year. This is a statewide issue. This is statewide, members. This is statewide. What I'm doing today members, is introducing and presenting to you the Alonzo-Veasey Plan. The Alonzo-Veasey Plan. Let me tell you why it's the Alonzo-Veasey Plan. You've heard the numbers, members, you have heard the numbers, members, and you have heard the numbers and what are they? Over 4 million population increase, over 4 million -- over 4 million, close to 90 percent of the growth is minority. Hispanic, African American, Asian. Now why is that important to mention, members? Why is that important to mention? The reason why it's important to mention is because we have got four congressional new districts. And you have heard, you have heard, members, that we get the State House map; we did the Senate map and now we're doing the congressional. And we have had a discussion and asked where do these ideas about where the districts come from? And today we heard the answer. We heard the answer. In the House and Senate we have been listening, we have been listening, to the incumbent congressmen. The incumbent. But you-all know that it's the incumbent republican members, the incumbent republican members are determining for us what we want. And I don't think that's what we want, members. I don't think it's what we want. Because with this plan, we can give them what they want and what we what. And what do we want? What do we want? What we want is an opportunity to participate in the congressional electoral process. If 90 percent of the the increase of the district of the population is minority, then we should do that. With my plan, members, we create four Hispanic opportunity districts. One that runs from Cameron to Mesas County. Two, one that is anchored in the south side of Bexar County and runs to San Marcos and Bastrop. Three, and very important, very important, very important; in Dallas county, members, in Dallas county, we create a Hispanic opportunity district between Dallas county and Tarrant County. Also, members, also, in Harris County we create a new Hispanic opportunity district. In addition, in addition, then the reason I call this the Alonzo-Veasey Plan is because in Tarrant County we unite the insular cohesive black and Hispanic communities in Tarrant County with a portion of southwest Dallas County. The result in the district is a district that allows for another -- for an African American to be elected. Finally, members, what I find great to think about, all session, I have not forgotten the Hispanics in west Texas; and what I do, in District 19 we create an emerging Hispanic opportunity district. Members, why is the current proposed plan so out reaching? Why? Why cannot we create Hispanic opportunity districts? Why? Members, I'm going to ask that you support this plan in the spirit -- in the spirit -- in the spirit of what's going on in north Texas. And you saw what's happened this week with the theme. I don't know if you're paying attention, members, but I think you did. The Mavericks won. And why did the Mavericks win? Because they said the time is now. The time is now for the Mavericks to win. And just like it's time for the Mavericks to win, I think that the time is now for us to create Hispanic opportunity districts statewide, and definitely in north Texas. Members, I ask you to support this plan. Because, members, what time is it? The time is what? I can't hear you. What? Okay. Please vote aye on this plan. Thank you, members.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Dallas Mavericks, the time is now. But it's not time now for Mr. Alonzo's amendment. I appreciate his effort. He has worked hard on the committee and paid attention a lot and tried to advocate what we thinks needs to be done. However, I think that it does create and tries to create a Hispanic majority district. Neither the new District 35 in north Texas, nor the new district 36 in Harris County, are actually Hispanic majority districts. And I know the numbers sort of glaze over, and I don't want to say that they are the most important thing but they are important. The SSVR's District 35 is 33.9 percent in his map, and his HCVAP is 39.6 percent. That's Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population. There's only 36.9 percent. The SSVR in District 36 is 23.6 percent, and its HCVAP is 26 percent. Neither district reaches this. And this is what's important, I think, neither district reaches the 50 percent threshold to actually create a Hispanic majority seat. I don't think his map is any better, legally, than the committee map in what we're trying to accomplish. And so, you know, I don't think the map reflects the input we have from a variety of sources. It is what Mr. Alonzo visions what should be done, and I respect that. But I'm going to have to move to table.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo to close.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Members , I want to thank Chairman Solomons for respecting me. I appreciate that very much. Thank you, Mr. Solomons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me tell you, in responding to his comments; when we deal with redistricting, and Chairman Solomons is very well aware, as he said, he was put in this position of redistricting. It's a new committee for him. But some of us have been dealing with redistricting issues for years and years and years and years. Let me tell you, in north Texas I would have not had an opportunity, an opportunity when -- until the Voting Rights Act. There was the lawsuit that created that opportunity. For years we've been waiting and waiting for a House seat, which we got. We're waiting for a Senate seat, which we're working on. And now -- now we're working on a Congressional seat. And you know, members, every single congressman gets to keep their seat, and there's four opportunities, four, to create. And you know that's the right thing to do, members. And let me tell you, in response to Mr. Solomons, in response to Mr. Solomons about these districts. In these districts, in No. 33; which is Cameron area, in the general election former Senator Oliveira got 52 percent, former State Representative Noriega got 59 percent, and Justice (inaudible) got 54 percent. The example I'm using, members, in all of the district plans that I have in creating opportunity district, the average turn out of Hispanics and people in those districts voting for a candidate of their choice has been laid out. What I am I trying to do, members? What I am I trying to do? I'm trying to fulfill what's fair and what's legal. We're going to win the legal, members. But right now we have an opportunity to do what's fair. It's only fair, members. Fair. Every single congressperson gets to keep their seat but, in fairness, we create opportunities without interfering with the opportunity to get elected. Members, under the law, under the law, the law says that if a district has a factor of minorities being sufficient, until (inaudible) compact, it goes to what we're trying to do. When the majority engaged in racial black voting, it has. And where the majority voted as a block to defeat minority candidate. Every single issue, every single issue under this plan is dealt with. But, more important, let's put aside for a minute put aside the issue of legal, let's talk about what's right and when is it right. And it's right now, right now, right now. And what time is it? And what time is it? The time is now. Members, I ask that you vote no. Please, please, please, vote no on the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Will the gentleman yield?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Alonzo, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Mr. Alonzo, I want to commend you for your work on redistricting, the time that you spent in the legislature. And also talk a little bit your background. You live in Dallas, you live in an area of Dallas that is predominately Hispanic. You have organized in Hispanic communities in Dallas in and around the state.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: The Chairman has not. I want you to be clear to everyone here today, these arbitrary numbers that the Chairman keeps throwing out about SSVR and what have you; what -- does that have anything to do with whether or not the district is a Hispanic opportunity district? Aren't there other considerations that need to be taken into consideration before that determination can be made?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That's right. And under the current proposed map it doesn't help us at all, because under Section 5 the state has the burden of showing that the map neither has the purpose nor the effect of discriminating on the basis of race, color or language. More importantly, after the 2006 amendments to the Voting Rights Act the state must protect the ability of the minorities to elect the preferred candidate of choice, which I pointed out. The proposed map does neither. In several districts in south and north Texas, latino opportunity minority communities are cracked and packed in order to achieve a desired result. It's not right. And under Section 2, as you point out, the Chairman points out the SSVR. But the other thing -- or the three points that I pointed out in my presentation. And Mr. Veasey, as I pointed out, in all the districts that I proposed, more than 50 percent of the people in that district voted for Justice (inaudible) former State Representative Oliveira, and former Senator Noriega.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Sounds like a Hispanic opportunity district to me, and I appreciate your help on this and for clarifying that for people. Because I knew that when the SSVR numbers were first put out there that they would be used for purposes to possibly discriminate. And we want to make sure that there are lots of Hispanic opportunity districts around the state, countries that are not 50 percent SSVR, but those communities are having the opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice. And I appreciate your work on this.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Members , again, close to 90 percent of the increase in population that created these four new congressional districts, minority. 90 percent. 65 percent Hispanic. 65 percent Hispanic.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Would Representative Alonzo yield for a few questions?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Alonzo, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Representat ive Alonzo, I thank you for your work and all the hard work that you've done. But on a serious note you touch on some issues that the Supreme Court has ruled on in reference to Voting Rights Act, in reference to creating minority opportunity districts. And the keywords are the purpose and effect of SB 4 would be to dilute the voting strength of latinos. Because, in one instance, they take communities of interest out of districts to help incumbent republicans. And then, at the same time, you pack districts. And it's happened with our state legislative House districts, because what they try to do is pack all the latinos and all the minorities into certain districts, so that you don't have an opportunity to create more latino districts or minority districts in general; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That is correct. And, Mr. Walle, I'm very serious. I'm extremely serious about this matter. Very, very serious, sir. For years and years and years we have been waiting. And what I can see here, as the law says, if it has the effect -- and that's the effect, we have 65 percent Hispanic, 90 percent minority. It's real clear, the effect of not creating opportunity minority districts is very clear, very clear. That's why, once again, seriously, seriously, seriously I believe that the time is now to create this. And we can do it on this floor of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: And because the Supreme Court has also stated the reason why the Texas and other southern states are still falling under preclearance, is because African Americans and latinos -- and the test case will be the agents, because our minority communities have been discreet, insular minorities. And that's the key phrase that the Supreme Court also looks at, at discreet, insular minorities where Texas has had a history of discrimination as it pertains to voting right issues. And that's still the reasons why, under the previous administration, that the Section 5 of the the Voting Right Act, Subsection 2 were reauthorized; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That is correct. And when the law passed, Mr. Walle, when the law passed, Voting Rights Act, it was a bipartisan effort throughout the State. The republicans and the democrats supporting this effort. And I think, and I believe, and I know -- I know we all have that what's in our hearts of what is right, and that is in the spirit of what we did in passing the Voting Rights Act. Members, I'm going to take no more of your time, but only one more time to say the time is now. I ask that you vote no on the motion to table.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Alonzo sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell showing. Show representative Solomons voting aye. Representative Alonzo voting no. Have all voted? Being 96 ayes and 46 nays, motion to table prevails. Members, this is Representative Turner's Plan 155. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Turner.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I am pleased to bring to you this amendment, which is acceptable to the author. Texas has been awarded four additional congressional seats due to the current population growth, which placed Texas at 25,145,561; as of the 2010 census. Plan 155, offered by the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, provides an opportunity for 14 minority communities to elect candidates of their choice to the United States Congress. The Texas Legislative Black Caucus creates three black districts, nine Hispanic districts and two minority coalition districts. The goal of TLBC, Texas Legislative Black Caucus' plan was to increase the presence of the minority population throughout Texas, which is in line with the population growth over the past ten years; and which the plan offered by the leadership, Plan 149 fails to do. The TLBC plan creates fourteen minority opportunity seats in Texas, whereas the leadership plan, Plan 149 only creates thirteen. The plan provides -- The plan that has been offered in this amendment provides for three African American seats in the Congressional delegation. In District 9, which is presently held by Congressman Al Green, the TLBC map increases the black population by approximately 13,000 people, compared to Plan 149. In District 18, presently represented by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee the TLBC map increases the black voting age population by 2,500 people versus what is presented in Plan 149. And in District 30, presently represented by Congresswoman Eddie Berniece Johnson, the TLBC map increases the black population by approximately 7,000 people versus what is presented in Plan 149, and solidifies the African American population map and growth centers into the district. The TLBC plan creates nine Hispanic districts throughout Texas, which are as follows: In CD10, stretching from Bexar to Travis County. In 15 from Hidalgo up to a portion of San Patricio County. And 16 in El Paso. 20 in Bexar County. 23 from west Texas to west Bexar County, and 27 from Cameron to Nueces and 28 from Star and Webb County to (inaudible) county, and 29 in Harris County. And 36 newly created districts in Dallas county. The TLBC plan also creates two new minority coalition districts. District 33, which stretches from Galveston and Harris County to Jefferson County, where the combined black and Hispanic population is 50.8 percent. And District 35 in Tarrant County, which creates a district with a combined black and Hispanic population of 66.4 seats. Members and Mr. Speaker and to Chairman Solomons, this amendment, Plan 155, is offered for your consideration today. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield for any questions.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Reynolds, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Mr. Turner yield for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'd be happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Sylvester, before I ask any questions about your particular map, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the proposed Solomons map violates the Voting Rights Act?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It is our considered opinion that it does.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: How so?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, number one, it does not take into account where the actual growth has occurred in this state, and the reason for the growth. It does not provide for added minority districts, whether they be Hispanic or African Americans. It does not provide for added minority opportunity districts, Congressional districts, with Hispanics, African Americans combined as well as other minorities. We believe that it shortchanges even though existing Congressional Districts, Districts 9, District 18 and District 30; by diluting the strength of minorities in those present districts. So when you combine all of those elements together, combined with the -- with the -- taking into account the process that has been implemented, and the limited time period that has been allowed, we believe that some of these issues, if not most of them, could have been addressed if the process would have been more transparent, more open. If other amendments, for example, were seriously considered. But, due to the hurriedness of this nature, due to the fact that we are dealing with the Congressional district in a special session on an expedited schedule, makes it very, very difficult to take into account the input from African Americans, from Hispanics and other minorities; in drawing fair and equitable districts. So, without question, in our considered opinion, it is a definite of the -- in the plan that is before us.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: And as we've stated from the inception, Texas has gained four new Congressional seats, mainly because of the explosive growth within the Hispanic and African American populations; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I don't believe that there is any question about that.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: The numbers speak for themselves?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The numbers speak for themselves. But when you look at the Congressional districts that are being drawn in the leadership plan, it fails to take that into account.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Right. So the numbers from the census, those aren't democrat numbers or republican numbers, those are numbers that were actually taken for the population growth in the State of Texas, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: And the plan that you devised, the Legislative Black Caucus map, did you take into consideration the explosive growth of the African American and Hispanic populations?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. We took into account the growth, where the growth occurred, the fact that Texas is getting four new Congressional districts; all of those elements were taken into account. It had no consideration in terms of the politics involved, but in terms of recognizing where the growth was occurring and whether or not we could draw equitable districts based on the representation of the growth that is occurring in the State of Texas. And, as a result, we are presenting this amendment, Amendment 155.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: And just so you can summarize for me, how does your proposed map differ from the Solomons proposed map?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: In this amendment that is before you, there are three black districts, nine Hispanic districts and two minority coalition districts, a total of fourteen. With respect to the plan that is before us, it doesn't quite take into account those new minority coalition districts, and it has fewer Hispanic and African American districts as a whole, versus what we are presenting today. It also, the Solomon plan doesn't take into account the growth or where the growth has taken place. The amendment that is before you does take into account where the growth has taken place.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: And I think you have a great proposed map. And it looks like, from my lay perspective, that the Solomons map may dis-enfranchise the minority population strength.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I would agree with you.
REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you, Sylvester.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank so very, very much. Mr. Speaker and members, I submit the plan.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Mr. Spea ker.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Naishtat, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Will the gentleman yield?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, I do yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Sylvester , with regard to the Solomon plan, I just wanted to clarify a couple of things: Are you aware that Austin voters make up a unique community of interest with strong diversity and a respect for different points of view?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Absolute ly.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Are you aware that nearly every elected official in Travis County has signed a letter stating that they don't want Hispanic families to be carved out of the county and connected with a distant population in San Antonio?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: And are you aware that in Davis County Hispanics, African Americans and Anglos act as a coalition, and are able to elect candidates of their choice from all races?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Well, what I wanted to do was ask you if you would agree that the Burt Solomon map, in relation to Austin and Travis County, could be characterized as purposeful or intentional discrimination?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, from my considered opinion, there is no question.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: That the map is not really about ensuring that one member of congress doesn't have a voice in Washington, but it's about ensuring that African Americans and Hispanics from Austin will essentially be unable to have a candidate of their choice represent them in Washington?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I do agree with your assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Spea ker and members, I submit this plan, Plan 155, which is from the Texas Legislative Black Caucus and --
JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Giddings, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker , will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, I will.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Turner , are you aware that the Texas population has grown about 20 percent since 2000?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, I am.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Are you aware that 89 percent of that growth was from non Anglos?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I am aware of that as well.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. I think that you would be aware that the Hispanic population grew at about 41.8 percent, and that African Americans is about 22.1.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is my understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. In view of that, the plan that has been put forth by Chairman Solomons, do you believe that it creates the influenced district which is so critical in terms of the Voting Rights Act?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Repeat the question again, I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Do you think that the plan that has been put forth by the chair of redistricting recognizes and creates the appropriate number of influenced districts, which is so critical under the Voting Rights Act?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The Solomons plan does not. In fact, I believe it is an outright violation of the Voting Rights Act.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Do you think that communities of interest were preserved in non-minority districts, communities of interest?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Not in the Solomons plan.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: You're more than welcome. I submit this plan, 155, and I believe it's acceptable to the author. Mr. Speaker, and we need not go to a vote, just accept and move forward. Thank you very much. Next amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner sends up an amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I will speak for Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Although I do appreciate Representative Turner and, obviously, Mrs. Davis as well putting forth a map; we've got some legal concerns as in previous map. Well, we've got some legal concerns. It actually does create one less Hispanic majority district, and these are the new District 10 in central Texas, or the new District 36 in north Texas are Hispanic majority districts. And you know, I go into the SSVRs again. But, at the end, the SSVRs in District 10 are 28.7 percent, and the HCVAP is 33.9 percent. Neither district -- District 36 is 33.2 percent, and the HCVAP is 37.7 percent, which most of you really don't pay much attention to those numbers and neither did I before I had to do this job. However, neither district reaches the 50 percent threshold to create a minority district. And what we tried to do is accommodate that. And this map creates only seven Hispanic majority districts, compared to the eight in the committee maps. So therefore, I respectfully will have to move to table Mr. Turner and Mrs. Davis' amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Spea ker and members, I think if you-all will take the time to take a look at it, I think many of you might be pleasantly surprised. It's a pretty good amendment with some sound Congressional districts that are equitable to all parties concerned. So I submit it for your consideration and I would hope -- I would ask that you vote no on the motion to table.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Turner sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. It's on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Shoe Representative Solomons voting aye. Representative Turner voting no. Have all voted? There being 93 ayes and 49 nays, motion to table prevails. Members, we're on Representative Martinez Fischer's plan, 163. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you Mr. Speaker, members. Members, what time is it? No, I'm just kidding. Time is now. Listen, I've been really encouraged by the debate, Chairman Solomons. And first let me say I know he's worked really hard. I know the entire redistricting committee has worked really hard, and I know y'all are probably worn out by this time. But what I'm encouraged by is Chairman Solomons, in critiquing some of these other amendments -- Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. In critiquing some of these other amendments he says they don't go far enough because they don't create majority SSVR districts, and they don't create majority HCVAP districts, which are Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population. And I will tell you that if you look at Plan C 149 that has been before us today you will know that we are dealing with 36 districts. You will see in the Solomons plan there are eight CVAP districts and there are seven SSVR districts. This amendment that I'm bringing to you today actually creates one additional SSVR, 50 percent or more, than the current map. I think that alone ought to be a basis for Chairman Solomons to take this component, we can bring it back on third reading if necessary. These amendments are not easy to do. But its true intent is to create SSVR districts by 50 percent or more, where there was one more he could have done. And that's what this plan, 153, does. But, more importantly, when you get to VH Voting Age Population, African American, Hispanic voting age population, 50 percent or greater; the Solomons map gives you 13, Plan 163 will give you 15. And how do we get there, members? In 163 we draw two districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, that's Hispanic districts, minority opportunity district. We draw one in Houston and one in the valley. This will give us an additional seat in the valley. We've been through this on State House Redistricting. We know we took a current member, Chairwoman Gonzalez' district and gave her back 1 percent of her district. And at the expense of bringing other members from other counties into Hidalgo County, the state lost an opportunity to create an additional Hispanic opportunity district in Hidalgo and Cameron, which I believe will be the basis of the subject of a lot litigation. This does the same thing. It demonstrates that if you wanted to draw an additional Congressional district in the valley you could. There have been several attempts to do that. And my comment is that any map out there that can demonstrate that is a map that we should support because it certainly demonstrates to Chairman Solomons and those that will have the final say on this litigation, they will show the potential that you could have done it if you wanted to, as opposed we did our best and we came up short.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Spe aker?
JOE STRAUS: Ms. Gonzales, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Will the gentleman yield for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I yield.
JOE STRAUS: Chairman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Represe ntative Martinez Fischer, first of all, thank you for pointing out some of the things that happen in the house map, and how we didn't create minority opportunity seats. You're aware, of course, that the Rio Grande Valley and the south Texas area has grown tremendously in population, not only as one of the fastest growing areas in the state, but also in the nation; are you not?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I agree with you completely. And it is not reflected, that growth is not reflected in the map before us offered by Solomon and Seliger. It certainly takes all that population into account, but then it redistributes that population credit for another part of the state, and the valley gets the typical response that the valley gets when it comes to redistricting. They just get a pat on the back for all the population, but no new political capital to show for it, no opportunity for the minority to have people represent their voices in Congress. And I think it would be one thing if the valley's needs are being currently being represented in Washington at its fullest potential. This tells us that we would rather pack the valley and make you more Hispanic, make you more of a packed district --
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Limit representation?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Lim it your representation at the expense of giving you a fourth member of Congress to help you with all the challenges that exist on the south Texas border. And I will say this, I say they care about immigration and those that care about securing our borders, you put another member in the valley -- you put on the member on the border, I think you get more attention on the border because now you just increased your congressional, your level of respect, your congressional presence to say that we need to do things and get tough on the border. This is actually counterintuitive to bringing wants and needs to the valley. Now this is not a perfect map, this map simply demonstrates that you can do it if you want to. We certainly -- We can draw it however Chairman Solomons likes, so long at the end of the day we have a new minority opportunity district that is majority HCVAP and has a majority Hispanic SSVR registration.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Are you aware with Solomons map would simply replace the current District 27 that is represented by (inaudible) and it simply replaces that, and it would be still controlled by a non-minority congressman.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: And that's a great point, because the argument for that part of the the coastal bend was that this is the only direction we can go. You can clearly see by this map what we did is we actually created --
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Created a new district, a District 33, which is a new district in the Rio Grande Valley anchored more along the Rio Grande Valley. And we could still have the (inaudible) one, which would be the Gulf Coast, but it would not be -- it would not be -- it would actually give the valley an additional seat as opposed to keeping three that it currently has.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: By focusing the majority of the district, which is centered in Nueces, for the Fairhold District, creates the opportunity to run 15 from the Valley to Nueces County.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Were you aware that the Solomons map actually moves over 206,000 Hispanic individuals in Nueces County, over 3,000 in (inaudible) county and 20,000 in San Patrico County from a Hispanic opportunity district into a non-opportunity district. Were you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I am aware of that. And, again, it goes to the travesty of taking the population growth for the purposes of saying we get four new Congressional seats in Washington and to strengthen our voice. And those that brought you to the dance are the ones left on the sidelines. And we are drawing these districts for partisan purposes. It's really more of a purposeful and intentional discrimination, which I think is unfortunate that we still see that in these maps. But, fortunately, these are the easiest fallacies and problems to point out either before the Justice Department, the DC Courts of the District of Columbia, ultimately before a prejudged panel on redistricting litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: One of the things we also look at, Representative Martinez Fischer, as you're well aware, is communities of interests and keeping them intact. Were you aware that under the current proposed map, the Solomons map, we would, in the Rio Grande Valley, fracture communities of interest. And under your map we would actually keep them together and be able to create a new district?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: You know, I'm beginning to find out that cracking and packing and splitting of communities of interest is becoming commonplace down in the valley, as if we're all monolithic people, as if we all make decisions together, that there are not such things as neighborhood associations and church communities and Little League districts, and all the things that you enjoy in other parts of the state; they seem to not matter very much in the south Texas border area, because those issues are always expendable. Those issues are always put by the wayside so that we can pack and keep these districts as big as we can so that we can create non-minority opportunity districts elsewhere, and I think it's a shame.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I think it is as well. And I appreciate the fact that you're bringing this map, and that there are others that are bringing today that will provide for more equity among Hispanic voters throughout the state.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Wel l, thank you. And I submit it again, members, this simply states that if you want to draw an additional minority opportunity district in south Texas you could. There's the population that are supported, certainly not new to the committee on redistricting. This is something that they have known about. The reason why it didn't exist, particularly under the bar that has been set by the Chairman, which I believe is a fair read of redistricting law, about making sure you have HCVAP, making sure you have SSVR at those high thresholds; well, you can do that with your eyes closed in the valley. You don't even need Red Apple to draw four Hispanic districts, four minority opportunity districts in south Texas. With the population that south Texas has you can draw with a penicil and a piece of paper. And that's simply what this amendment demonstrates. But again, it creates these new opportunities in Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex and Harris County, as well. Which is something that you don't see. And it does it by the standards that Chairman Solomons has told us that we need to strive for. It creates one more SSVR 50 percent district than what Solomons-Seliger map does, even as it changed in the House. As it came over from the senate, you know, those numbers were similar. But the house committee work is a slight improvement. This map certainly demonstrates that if you want to do it, you can. And, with that, I believe under the -- under Chairman Solomons' words of drawing SSVR districts, I would hope this would be acceptable to him. And I move adoption of Plan 163.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I appreciate -- Actually really do appreciate Representative Martinez Fischer's putting forth the map, and discussions of the various elements and SSVRs. However, it is similar in the committee map that creates eight Hispanic minority districts, but neither the new District 35 in north Texas, nor the new District 36 in Harris County are Hispanic majority districts. Neither one reaches 50 percent threshold. That's an important number. Some of these redistricting numbers are important. And it doesn't reach the 53 percent threshold to really -- to create a new Hispanic majority seat. So I don't think the map is any better, as far as that goes, than the committee map. I don't think that his map really does reflect the input we received from a number of folks. But I will point out that Mr. Martinez Fischer's plan 163 splits a number of cities. All maps sort of do, but in this case, in Dallas and Tarrant County alone, it splits Garland, Farmer's Branch, Carrollton, Irving, Cedar Hill, Grand Prairie and Arlington. And that's just a bit much for the committee and me. And when we talk about this being a Solomons map, it's actually Senate Bill 4 that came over from the Senate. And the committees worked hard on redistricting, the committees worked hard on looking at what was passed over by the Senate; and when Senator Seliger and I proposed a proposal, that has since changed somewhat. In fact, quite a bit. So as you can see, I think that Mr. Martinez Fischer's map is sort of a rewrite of Senate Bill 4, and I'm going move to table.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer to close.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you, Mr. Speaker. Members, again I think you can say what you want, but the numbers are what they are. And what this plan does is draw one additional SSVR 50 percent district, which is better than what we have on the floor. If those are the standards and those are the metrics that are being used by the committee on redistricting by and through the chairman, well then, you should take this. And what I submitted earlier is if Chairman Solomons doesn't like a certain part of the map as it pertains to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and those cuts, we can draw it however you want. Just give us -- Give us a net total of fifteen BHVAP 50 percent districts, and we'll let you draw the rest of the state however you want, because you give 15 seats, you give us 13. That clearly doesn't make up for the fact when you look at the -- when you look at going from 10 to 13, from the current plan to the Solomons map, Seliger map, excuse me; with four new Congressional seats, it doesn't even begin to take into account the 90 percent growth of the minority community in the last decade. And so if the bar is going to be set that high, let's take that eighth SSVR district, we can redraw this however you want. And I will comment that if cutting into cities is not that big of a deal, we cut into two big sties in this current map as we travel from Austin to San Antonio, I think someone told me that we weave in and out of nine different communities and communities of interest, kind of like we're doing a ski slalom. And you cut into a city as big as Travis and a city as big as San Antonio, which I imagine would rival population in Carrollton and Farmers Branch and these other areas that Chairman Solomon cares so much about. So if that's the standard, let's do another amendment to tough up and fix the way we cut in and out of communities from San Antonio and Travis, let's be consistent. We will all be consistent in that regard. I'll fix my map if he fixes his, and Senator Seliger, you know, agrees to it. But the point is if we're going cut into communities well, then it's fair game. And if we're going to cut the communities to grow the map to create more minorities then we should. That's the obligation. That's what the big fight is all about. I don't believe these litigation disputes ten years ago was able -- it was about the very same thing. The State had an opportunity to grow the map, to make it more diverse, to build in more communities of interest, more minority opportunities; and it didn't. And that's why the map changed. And again, this is just a benchmark, it's a sample, it's a demonstration, it's an opinion. It's not the final answer. But it certainly shows if you wanted to, here's the potential to do it one way. You could probably do it three other ways or half a dozen other ways. In fact, I'm going to offer two more amendments after this that can get you the same number by looking at different parts of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speak er?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal -- Mr. Martinez Fischer, do you yield.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Represent ative Fischer, thank you for offering this map. I appreciate your work on bringing this proposal that meet what I believe is the obligation of the Voting Rights Act. I'm just now beginning to study your proposal. Can you tell me where you add the additional Hispanic opportunity district?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: The re are, in plan 163 there are two minority opportunities in Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, one in Houston, one in the valley; and so it would be a total of four. And it will increase, performance-wise, it will give --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry, maybe I heard you wrong. You're not just adding one new Hispanic opportunity district?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: No, I'm talking a lot about the Valley because. Now I have three maps, and they're all going to be very similar. What makes this one distinct from the other two is it creates -- it demonstrates that you can draw from the valley to Corpus and create an additional minority opportunity district. That I would bring two others that will grow the map by the same number of minority opportunities, but not necessarily in the valley. The next one will focus on looking at Bexar County to Bastrop, for instance.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay. Thank you so much.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you for your work on redistricting. I imagine -- I know what it feels like to be outdone out there, but I know that you've done a good job representing what I believe is the single and sole issue that comes up in litigation, is that you had an opportunity to draw congress that reflects the state, and has some sympathy for incumbency, but incumbency doesn't drive. That's not what we're here to do. We all had to make tough decisions on our house maps, and while most of us cared about incumbency we also recognized that we had to draw a map that reflected road patterns of the state. And there was a map that went in one direction, and there were several amendments that went in another direction. Well, this is one where you don't have to look at your deskmate and say I'm sorry for having to vote this way. Because this is about drawing a fair map based on population. We are one of the the few states that are fortunate enough to draw for new seats, and I don't want to spoil that opportunity by -- You know that old adage about pigs getting fat and hogs getting slaughtered? I mean this is a status quo incumbency map that is an overreach, and we will be litigating this. But for the purposes of whether you believe this is the right map to draw, you can cannot deny that it improves on Senate Bill 4 by creating that one additional Spanish surname voter registration map. And I move that you vote no on the motion to table. And if we do that then we will come back and hopefully Chairman Solomons will accept it. So please vote no on the motion to table.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Martinez Fischer sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Representative Solomons voting aye. Representative Martinez Fischer voting no. Show Representative Villarreal voting no. Have all voted? Being 92 ayes and 48 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, this is Plan 157. Representative Johnson? Following amendment, clerk will read the amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Johnson for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I move to reconsider the vote on Plan 157.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Johnson moves to reconsider the vote by which Plan 157 was adopted. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. Chair lays out Plan 178. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Johnson.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Johnson.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: This is just a substitute amendment that makes it clear that we are getting rid of the the changes to Congressional District 5. It's what we discussed before, but this is a technical correction that makes it clear that Congressional District 5 is not affected. And I believe it's acceptable.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you members. This amendment is acceptable. It has to do with drafting, more than anything else. Technical amendment pulling out 5, because when you have to redraw and redraft the bill and the map, it just helps in doing that. So it's a technical amendment as a substitute for the previous amendment. It is acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Johnson sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Representative Johnson also moves to withdraw Plan C 177 as an amendment. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. We're now on Plan 157 as amended by -- Plan 178. Chair recognizes Representative Johnson.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Yeah, I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Johnson sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, this is Representative Martinez Fischer's Plan 164.
CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you, Mr. Speaker. Members, maybe this will have a better run now that the chairman is in a giving mood, he just accepted the Johnson amendment. This is like the Johnson amendment, except it creates just a couple more minorities. That's right. And I know that I'm going to state the obvious. If you look at this map you will see it is very similar to the map that we just brought before, but you always hear the argument about, you know, you can't draw these districts and -- without, you know, looking at the communities of interest. You have to make sure that you have to respect incumbents and you have to do all these things. And so the challenge that I gave to the folks that have been helping me on redistricting was draw me a district with a brand new Hispanic opportunity district and don't get into anyone else's business. Because I can draw the map that I think is the best map, and Chairman Solomons might say, not Solomons, just today because he's debating, or anyone could say that we don't like that because you now have made this district more competitive and it threatens that is incumbent. So I said okay, draw me a district that gives me a new Hispanic seat without touching anybody and affecting anybody else's political liability. Because I'm really not concerned about that, I'm concerned about growing the map about diversity. But there seems to be a big argument about protecting incumbencies, and respecting political lines. And so we took all the Hispanics from Bexar County to Bastrop County, and we drew a district without even touching Travis County. I think for some of my friends in Travis County it's a relief to them, because it doesn't cut into Travis County when everybody so conveniently has. And while I'm sympathic to the argument, you know, I know that's where population is and that's sort of being in the center of Texas you sometimes open yourself up to that. But we were sensitive to that and we drew a map, and that's why you'll see it looks no different than -- it looks no different than the Fort Bend map that we passed in the State Senate, where it captures communities and moves in a circle that moves up the cost all the way up to Port Arthur. This does the same thing from Seguin to Comal, and from Bastrop into San Antonio. Again, you can't argue -- You may not like what it looks like, and Chairman Solomons was joking with me, saying it looked like the circle of life. And so I appreciate the humor. I happen to agree with him. But I don't think he can deny that it takes all the Hispanics in that region to create its own district. And in so doing that, it still performs better under the standards for HCVAP which this map will give you eight, and under Plan 149 offered by Solomons and Seliger they have eight. So we're tied there. But it does give you an eight SSVR 50 percent district, whereas the Solomons-Seliger map gives you seven. But, most importantly, when you get down to the nitty gritty it gives you 15 combined African American, Hispanic voting age population districts, 50 percent or more, it gives you 15. On the Solomons-Seliger map give you 13. Absolutely performs better for minorities. Certainly takes into account the growth that they have contributed to this state, it's a way of saying that we acknowledge the growth and we want to give that growing demographic of minorities a larger voice in Congress to comport with their growth. And so, with that, I move that we adopt the circle of life and I move adoption of the Martinez Fischer-Solomons circle of life amendment. And in the spirit of Representative Johnson -- is it acceptable? You want to think about? Can we recess a little bit so he can think about it? I move adoption of the circle of life, Plan 164.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Mr. Spea ker, members, I appreciate Mr. Martinez Fischer's attempt to create a circle of life around one entire district and try to make it performing. But in District 36, for example, in the map, in doing, it still doesn't create a 50 percent threshold. It still splits a number of cities in north Texas. And I appreciate his vision and what he thinks he wants to do in connection with arguing the legal merits of his position, but I don't think his map really takes in consideration all the work and what we've done in listening to constituents and listening to the delegation and other members of this House. And, quite frankly, I think it's not the right map. And I would appreciate your -- and I would appreciate the members agreeing with me to move to table the amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you, Mr. Speaker. Chairman, I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention. I thought you said you would take it. And so if you are -- I won't tell -- He's -- I get an atta boy, I get an atta boy for effort. I appreciate that. I hope I hope you're as nice with me when we have to take your deposition down the road, and we'll take breaks, and we'll take breaks, you know, we'll get your good side on video. Don't worry about that. I have that problem, too. So I appreciate the work Chairman Solomons does. He's under a tremendous amount of pressure, the committee works very hard. The fact of the matter is this is not a work that's based on congeniality, it's based on demographics and data. The demographics and data support the fact that you can grow this map, make it more diverse. I'm bringing three examples that I can draw in my office, you know, with limited help. The House, as an institution, has tremendous resources. More than any member will ever have in their offices. They have the ability to hire people, they're not bound by the budgets that we're constrained by. And so with the best of technology, the best access to Red Apple and all the data, all the demographic data, all the election data, all that you want; Chairman Solomons has that available to him. The committee on redistricting has that available to them. If you were paying attention to the debate there was even a little repartee about whether or not certain attorneys assigned to the committee work for the committee or work for the Chairman, or -- because the committee talked to the attorney outside the presence of the chairman. I'm not on the committee, I just heard some of the scuttle. I saw some of it on TV. But the point is, the committee on redistricting has tremendous resources. And so they're in the best position to draw a map that's going to be fair, that is going to comport, that will not discriminate, that will not be an intentional act of retrogression, that will not divide the communities of interest that we've heard about so much. But yet a single member in his office, with limited assistance, could actually draw a map with less resources that makes a little bit better sense and tells the story of Texas; by having one additional SSVR 50 percent. And, again, I mean I think that Chairman Solomons' chief objection is that he doesn't think that I get the 50 percent, even though I believe I do. And I'll stand by my data. But I submit it that we can draw this however he wants. If I've demonstrated the case that you can do this, and it's not done to the liking of the committee, well, let's redraw it tonight and let's come back on third reading and take something that he will accept. But just to say no because I think it doesn't get to where you say it gets, or you don't like the way it looks, well, let's fix it. Because I've demonstrated that it could be done. This is just a second attempt. And, obviously, I'm not going to bring three maps that look the same, but I've shown you that you that you can draw an additional SSVR district if you wanted to. But draw it however you want, let's just get to eight and let's get from 13 HVAP districts to 15. You can draw it however you want. The numbers are there that support that you can do it. The question is whether there's the will to do it. And the second follow-up to that is whether or not you're willing to make that tough choice. In the light of everything that seems to be screaming in this map, which is status quo and protection for incumbency and growing a map to suit one demographic at the expense of those that are growing the map. That's what that map does. That's purposeful, that's intentional, that is what we would call the way you can segregate and separate. And it does nothing to advance what 90 percent of the the minorities did this last decade. It certainly doesn't even take them into account. So, with that, I ask you on the motion to table, vote no. And vote so we can bring Plan 164 back up. Thank you members. Vote no.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Martinez Fischer sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote nay. Showing Representative Solomons voting aye. Showing Representative Martinez Fischer voting no. Have all the voted? Being 94 ayes and 48 nays, the motion to table prevails. This is Plan 165 by Martinez Fischer. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Okay . They say three is a charm. I think you'll like this map because what it does is it draws a congressional district for our speaker, puts him in Congress, and draws a district for Chairman Solomon and puts him in congress, you know, so -- And so the idea is that if we can get Burt out of the House, maybe we can get more minority maps on this -- No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. It doesn't do that. I'm just seeing if you're paying attention. This does what some other maps that you've seen -- What, you know, it takes a similar approach by connecting Travis County and Bexar County to create that additional district. It also maintains the two districts for the Dallas Metroplex area, the one minority opportunity district area in Harris County; for a total of four. Even still on the third rendition, it performs better statistically than the Seliger-Solomons map, by taking one additional SSVR district. And it also performs better by taking the DHVAP seats and growing them from 13 in the Solomon-Seliger map to 15. And another important attribute is it takes -- it takes areas into account. For instance, you can draw three districts that a majority or -- excuse me, where the African American population is the largest population in that district, which is extremely hard to do given the geography and demography of the African American community, that you can draw great minority districts. But this one actually takes three districts and makes African Americans the largest -- the largest segment in that district. Currently, if you want to measure that by today's Congressional standards, they do that once. And we do it three times. And so I think that's an important fact to keep in mind in terms of preserving communities of interest and protecting people of color, African Americans and Hispanics. And so the only variation again, this one connects San Antonio to Austin. And I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Not to belabor the point, but it's similar arguments as the last two maps. Members, I hope you'll stick with me and move to table.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you Mr. Speaker. Members, again I think the overall point of these three various maps is to show that on three separate occasions we can draw a better map that respects minority opportunities, that respects our growing diversity in this state, and it's an improvement from what is being offered to us today. I'm not saying this is the perfect map, I'm not saying that we should do this map, as is. I say we should stick to the numbers. And we should draw 8 SSVR districts at 50 percent, and draw 15 districts that have a combined African American, Hispanic voting age population of over 50 percent. We ought to draw three districts where African Americans are the largest population. As opposed to the one district that exists today. This better reflects and represents who we are as a state. This gives us to have an opportunity to have more voices at the table when it comes to our Congressional approach. And, again, we argue about not having our resources on the Texas border, though we're denying the opportunity to put a forth member of congress. Maybe we would be so lucky that that fourth member gets put upon appropriations to bring up some infrastructure money. Perhaps we can get somebody to actually bring a Veterans Hospital to the Valley. And we need that one extra member to do that, because you know how it is serving on this House floor when you see these delegations that are occupied by multiple members, the big delegations are always some of the most effective. You know, Harris County has its own 4/5 vote suspension if it wanted to. It has almost enough members to block a 4/5ths vote. That's how big they are. And they're very effective up here. Let's add another seat in the north Texas region, let's have two seats in Congress in the Dallas metroplex area. Let's think about what that does for your constituents. Forget party labels for the moment. Let's start thinking about per capita dollars. I hear lots of debates on this floor about how much money we send up to Washington and how we always get the short end of the stick. Well maybe if we put two new members of Congress in Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex maybe the circumstances would improve over there. Maybe if you add another seat in Houston maybe they become more powerful. If you had a seat in the valley that obviously makes it the case. If you can if you can now give communities like Bastrop and San Marcos and Lockhart, if you can give them a voice in Congress now, because now they have to stand in the game; why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't we? Especially when Highway 35 is the most congested highway we have in our state, arguably. Our most congested interstate. Our great priority federal projects is let's see if we can expand Highway 35. Well, let's see if we can put congressman in DC that straddles Highway 35. Maybe we can get some attention to that issue. And that's the point you need to start thinking about, what an additional member does to you, not politically, but what it does for you as a representative government to give us a larger voice in the areas that are getting, by and large, more and more of the issues that really challenge the State of Texas when it comes to money and infrastructure and projects and programs. Whatever spectrum you are, if you want to cut government well, let's put someone up in Dallas where you can get an extra voice so you can cut government. If you want to grow goth you can do the same thing. The fact of the matter is, let's put members of Congress where we need them, and not satisfy somebody who believes we should accommodate certain people because they believe this is how the map should look. Why don't we do this one for ourselves? Why don't we do this one for our communities? I have clearly demonstrated three different ways, and I imagine if we break for lunch and come back in an hour I can come up with a fourth map and do it a fourth way. 0because it's too easy to do. It's difficult to do without stepping on peoples toes, but being sensitive to purely demographics, being sensitive to creating examples of what you can do on limited resources and virtually no resources. We still do better under 163, 164, and 165. And so if Chairman Solomons is sensitive to that notion, we can always draw the map the way he wants. All we need is an additional SSVR district and 15 African American Hispanic voting age population districts. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Martinez Fischer sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Showing Representative Solomons voting aye. Representative Martinez Fischer voting no. Have all members voted? There being 95 ayes and 47 nays, the motion to table prevails. We're on Plan 166 by Representative Dukes.
CLERK: Amendment by Dukes.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dukes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this map is a map which incorporates the new Dallas-Fort Worth minority district, which is labeled CD35 in this map. That is very similar to the CD34 plan, the Veasey plan; C121. It has the same Hispanic and black performance. The Hispanic citizen voting age in this district is 45.6 percent. The black citizen voting age is equal to 18.3 percent, with a combined percentage way over the 50 percent marker that Representative Solomon has been discussing. Harris County is similar to the plan presented by Representative Alvarado, Plan C126 in the new Congressional district labeled CD36 has the same Hispanic performance and slightly higher black performance as in Representative Alvarado's map. The Hispanic citizen voting age is 45.1 percent. The black citizen voting age is 14.2 percent. The Austin to San Antonio district, CD35, in a republican plan, in Senate Bill 4, was moved to the valley to keep -- to give the valley the new seat that its growth calls for, but as well to keep Austin's community of interest intact. It is labeled CD35 in this map. This -- It contains -- This map contains the same number of minority control district as all other fair and legal maps our colleagues have presented, and that is mandated to meet the Voting Rights Act. This map keeps the minority coalition of Hispanic and African Americans voters in east Travis County together, so their voice and vote can be effective. This is in stark contrast to Senate Bill 4's purposeful discrimination of these minority communities. In Senate Bill 4 Austin voters make up, although we know that Austin voters make up a unique community of interests with strong diversity and respect for different points of view. That's why we're considered the heart of Texas, the oasis of Texas. In Travis county, the Hispanic and African Americans and Anglos as a coalition are able to elect the candidates of their choice from all races. Nearly every Hispanic elected official in Travis County has signed a letter stating that they do not want Hispanic families to be carved out of Travis County and connected with a distant population in San Antonio. I don't support a plan that would break up that coalition. Austin voters form a coalition to elect candidates of choice, regardless of race or ethnicity. Other than the legislature, examples have include former Austin Mayor Gus Garcia, former Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, Travis County Attorney David Escamilla and Travis County Judge, Sam Biscoe, as well as many others. This plan works to ensure that African Americans and Hispanics and like-minded Anglo voters in eastern Travis County, eastern Austin, are able to continue a coalition and elect an individual who will properly represent their voice without the creation of purposeful discrimination, as that which is done in Senate Bill 4.
JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Gonzalez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, for a few questions, if the lady will yield.
JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Dukes, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Yes, I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you, Mrs. Dukes. Does your proposed map create a new congressional district in the Rio Grande Valley to reflect the Hispanic growth in that region of the state?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Yes, it does.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. And, in fact, it does so in order to keep Austin's community of interest intact, and to give the valley a new seat that the growth calls for; does it not?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: It's a win/win balance.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: It's a win for both? And does the proposed map in Senate Bill 4 create a district in the Rio Grande Valley, to your knowledge?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: No, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. In fact, all it does is it replaces a current district that's represented by Representative Blake (inaudible), which would be easily controlled by nonminority voters; isn't that right?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: That is correct. Purposely discriminating against minority voters.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Correct . And do you know whether or not hearings were had to allow constituents to provide input on these, the proposed maps that Representative Solomons is bringing to us?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: That's a good question. The proposed map had one hearing that really was just a check off of a process, but not necessarily listening to the concerns of voters in your district, in your part of Texas or in my part of Texas. Basically, the information and the concerns brought forth by our constituencies for the most part went in one ear and out the other.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes. And don't you find that to be troublesome, given that this is going to be a map that's going to last for the next ten years?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Absolutely. Because the greater concern is that Texas has been and continues to be a state that needs to be governed by the Voting Rights Act because of purposeful discrimination, as is being created in Senate Bill 4. And this is a purposeful intent to carve out the minority vote in Texas so that those who greatly need the protection of the Voting Rights Act would not be able to vote for individuals who would support the continuation of the the Voting Rights Act. Purposefully creating separation. You couldn't have done a better job unless you were a surgeon with a sharper scalpel going through, carving out minority communities and minority neighborhoods than what was done in Senate Bill 4.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: And purposefully creating the separation that you're talking about, don't you believe that would be blocked by the Department of Justice and the federal courts?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: I think, absolutely. I think there's a misunderstanding of minority communities of interest. When communities, as far south as your district, and as far north as my district are paired together, I think really and truly even a kindergartener that know would be similar to associating the likeness of a Mexican American with someone who lives southern Mexico, and an African American with someone who lives in eastern Africa. It just is not the same.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: In fact, it has been done before. And I know that it was found to be void. I remember a few years back, Lloyd Doggett was the Representative down in the Rio Grande Valley. They called it the fajita strip, because it went from the Highland Mall, all the way down to Star County where Representative Guillen's district is.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: And we called it the bacon strip.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: That's right, fajita strip, bacon strip. Either way, what it was doing was splitting communities of interest, which is what the proposed map that Chairman Solomons is doing; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: The proposed map by Chairman Solomons purposefully attempts to eliminate one person. But when we're drawing maps based on law, and based on what is fair and balanced, it's not about one person being elected to office; it's about one voice having the opportunity to elect the individual of their choice. And they have purposefully gone so far in their attempts to eliminate one person that they have eliminated the voice of 688,000 people in Travis County.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Correct . And we believe that that, at the end of the day, is going to found in violation of the Voting Rights Act. And your map would give us an opportunity to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, would it not?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you, Representative Dukes. I support your map.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you, ma'am.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker , would the gentle lady yield for a question?
JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Dukes, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Yes, I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Representat ive Dukes, thank you for your amendment and particularly as it pertains to Harris County because, in your amendment, it creates another opportunity district for latinos to have an influence in; particularly on the east part of the county and southeast part of the county. Do you -- do you believe that it's justified, particularly because of the growth in Harris County that we've experienced? And just to give you a little background, there's probably 500 to 600,000 new Spanish surname folks that live in Harris County now.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: I think it's very important that we look at what is happening in the growth on a local level, and not just look at the SSVR; as Representative Solomons has stated. But on the impact that it has on those who turn out and those who vote. And what's more important is that when we are looking at those these maps we always talk about government and policy being from the local community, everything being local. Well, your local community of Harris County knows your community of interest and coalitions best. Why should I, from Travis county, come in and try to manipulate that and change that for some other outcome? There was already a plan in place in the Alvarado map that took into concern the constituents' issues, and so that's what's placed in this map. Just as those concerns of individuals of African Americans and Hispanics and Anglos who have coalition vote in eastern Travis county have been placed in the maps so that we can avoid any level of purposeful discrimination.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: And just to give you a little background information, we've just had some city council redistricting where we added -- under a DOJ, under a lawsuit the City of Houston, once they've reached a threshold of 2.2 million they had to create two more single member districts. And one of those single member districts is a majority leader district on the south part of town, which encompasses part of what you're trying to do in this map. And I just want to commend you for that, because the amount of growth in Harris County with 1.7 million Spanish surname folks, let alone the emphasis on the SSVR; I know that's important but, again, what you don't want to do is pack all the minorities into one community and then try to dilute them in the other areas. And what we're trying to do is give the opportunity to folks to elect the candidate of their choice, and that's what you're trying to do.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: We're looking naturally at growth.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Mr. Spea ker?
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose, Mr. Naishtat?
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Will Representative Dukes yield?
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Mrs. Dukes, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Yes, I yield.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The gentle lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Thank you. I wanted to clarify that the amendment that you're offering contains the same number of minority controlled districts as all other fair and legal maps that our colleagues have presented, and that's mandated to meet the Voting Rights Act; is that --
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: That, it does.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: And I wanted to clarify that this map keeps the minority coalition of Hispanic and African American voters in east Austin together, so that --
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Representative Kuempel raises a point of order, the gentle lady's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer to speak for the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I just rise to support the Dukes plan. Let me tell you why: As I said earlier, there are many members that they can come up with an approach to draw a map that does something differently and, as you heard in the debate, there's really no set metric that's being used to determine whether or not you are appropriately looking at minority opportunities. I'm the chairman of MALK and MALK's legal position is that we look at HCVAP, and we look at SSVR percentages. And we believe that's our theory. Under the Dukes proposal, I've talked to Representative Dukes and some members from Travis, they have another metric that they use that I also think is a viable metric. We just don't agree on each others' metric. We support each others' metric, but we do agree on the idea that you can create multiple opportunities to diversify the congressional map. And the approach they've taken -- I will yield in--
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mrs. Howard?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Will the gentleman yield for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Do you yield, Mr. Fischer?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I would be happy to yield in one minute.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Not at that time.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: And , Donna, I will yield. Let me just make the point that I see in plan 166 offered by Representative Dukes that is very appealing to me. It should be very appealing to anybody that care about minority opportunities. The number of HVAP districts grow under the Dukes plan from eight, that's being offered today by Chairman Solomons and the Solomon-Seliger map, to ten. And the number of BVAP African American voting population, plus Hispanic citizen voting age population, which we call HCVAP; so when you combine BVAP and HCVAP at 50 percent or more, the Solomon-Seliger map will give you eleven, the Dukes map will give you thirteen. They believe that's a strong argument for them, and that's something that they're going to be discussing as this moves forward down the road. And I think it's a respectable theory. I think the theory that MALK is offering is a theory that we want to pursue. But you can't deny the numbers in the Dukes effort. And so because it does those increases over the current plan, I will be voting for it. And I will be asking members of MALK to be voting for it as well. And, Mr. Speaker, I will yield to Representative Howard.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields, Mrs. Howard.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Trey, I'm going to try to simplify this a little bit more for myself and maybe some others. In terms of looking at Travis county, which is obviously the county that Representative Dukes and I both represent; I wanted to ask you, Trey, if you know, you've heard -- probably heard people say well, you should be really grateful because you get to have more congress people representing you. Have you heard people say things like that?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I'v e heard that, and this is in the map that has fifteen members of congress going to Austin.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes. Chairman Solomons's map that had five divisions of Travis county. Did you know though that, Trey, when you look at those five divisions the way that Chairman Solomons has presented it, that we don't have a single district in those five that has any more than 35 percent of our population in it, which essentially says that we don't have any possibility, if you look at percentages, that is; of being able to elect our own representative.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: And I think that's troubling. But what's even more troubling is I imagine today, if you have one member of Congress or two members of Congress, and the city of Austin calls a meeting to talk about federal issues, you have a pretty good shot of getting one or both members at these Congress at these meetings. When you have five members of Congress that have this much of Travis county I mean is it likely that you're going to get any to show up at these meetings?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Well, I certainly have that same question myself. But another thing I wonder if you knew, that Travis county is the only county out of the the twelve largest in the state that doesn't have even one congressional district that includes greater than 50 percent of that county's population. Did you know that?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I did not know that.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: The only one out of the the twelve largest counties in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: And you know, I think -- and again, you've seen this map and everybody has played with Red Apple. It just seems to me that when it came to drawing the Solomons-Seliger map they started in Travis county and then they moved north east and west and south.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Which I appreciate being the center of the state. But, at the same time, it seems to be depriving, wouldn't you say, Travis county; of any kind of substantive representation in terms of at least one congressional district that we would have more than 50 percent of our population in?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: And especially, like I said, in light of the growth. If you wanted to recognize the growth between Travis County and Bexar County I just showed you you can draw a map from Bastrop to Bexar County and do the exact same thing and leave two members of congress in Travis County that have significant portions of Travis county; that makes -- I would take two strong members of Congress that represent substantial portions than to take, you know, five or six members of Congress that just have little fingers or little pieces of Travis County, because you don't -- you're not able ever to measure the true sentiment of the county when you only have to account for one fifth of it or one sixth of it.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And I guess you know, also, that the Solomons map essentially leaves western Travis County, which is an area that I represent, pretty much intact. And divides significantly the eastern portion of our county into five different -- funneling into five different congressional districts, which is basically our minority population; that part of our county. So it's, in essence, the term y'all keep using, cracking and packing; that's what it's doing here.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: And I think simply by restoring that, I have not seen the Dukes map. I've just looked at the performance on the data. But I imagine when Representative Dukes corrected that splitting of east Austin, you know, from the north piece and the southeast, you get the bigger numbers. You get ten HVAP districts, 50 percent or more, as opposed to eight. You get thirteen African American voting age populations and Hispanic citizen voting age population districts over 50 percent, versus eleven. And by simply making those adjustments you restore those minority opportunities, you do not have the intentional discrimination, the purposeful discrimination that's taking place at the expense of the minority community.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And it does appear to be purposeful discrimination. And Representative Dukes' proposed map I think is fair to Travis County residents, and I'll be supporting it. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you. And, members, again, that's why I rise on the Dukes amendment, is that while we have a different theory we respect Travis' County right to represent their districts. And they drew a map that actually performs better for minorities, if you're looking at Spanish age population BVAP and HCVAP, they do a much better job than the Solomons-Seliger alternative. Faced between those two choices I'll be voting for the Dukes amendment. And I ask any member who is interested in voting rights to vote to support the Dukes amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Naishtat to speak in favor.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, I want to share a few thoughts about Austin. Which, as most of you know, is unusual and special and has many different qualities. One of those qualities is the strength of our diversity and respect for different points of view. Our neighborhoods work together in Austin and Travis County, and we work better when we work together, not divided and joined with remote distant communities. We deserve a united voice in Washington that reflects our values. Austin values, even those that are weird. While prior to the last redistricting, we benefited from one congressional district that encompassed about 98 percent of Travis County. Our estimated population of 1 million means that we're too large for a single member of Congress. My request would be that we adopt the Dukes amendment and keep as much of Travis County together as the population permits. Central Austin should be represented by one strong voice in Washington, not splintered into multiple pieces. It doesn't serve either Austin or the remote rural or urban areas to have their diverse interests united in one Congressional District. It's in the best interests of both that they have a representative in Congress who can best reflect their views. Travis County's leadership reflects the diversity of its citizens. Travis County has elected an African American county judge and tax collector, as well as several district judges. We have African Americans and Hispanics in our city government and on our school board. We've had an Hispanic city counsel member, Hispanic mayor and Hispanic state senator, as well as a number of Hispanics; including our current district clerk and several judges who have long been successful at winning countywide elections. It doesn't serve our minority communities to be linked with representatives outside of Austin, for example, with minority communities in San Antonio. It doesn't serve our minority communities to be subjected to what can only be characterized as purposeful, intentional discrimination per Senate Bill 4. Many of us recall the bitterness of Tom Delays congressional redistricting efforts to split up Austin in a way so that nobody from Austin would serve in Congress. It's remarkable, indeed its outrageous that, to this day, the University of Texas, the State Capitol, the Travis County courthouse and surrounding intercity neighborhoods are represented by someone who does not live in Austin. I would hope that you would vote for the Dukes amendment, which redraws the SB 4 proposed district license, so that Austin and as much as Travis County as possible may be represented by a congressperson who reflects our values and will give us a unite voice in Washington.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomon to speak against.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, while I appreciate the efforts and the conversation, I have some legal concerns about the map. It creates one less Hispanic district, Hispanic majority district, than the committee map. And neither the new District 35 in north Texas, nor the District 36 in Harris County are Hispanic minority districts. In fact, this map also retrogresses district 29. And, quite frankly, Mrs. Dukes' map, as I say, creates one less majority district than the committee map.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Spe aker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Hildebra nd, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Solomons , do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Burt, you just mentioned that it retrogresses or it takes one Hispanic district away. Which district number were you referring to?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I'm sorry, which one?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: You said in your opening remarks that it -- that her amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: It retrogresses District 29, according to the numbers based on what the analysis looks like.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So you're saying it's 29?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: In 29. The benchmark map, District 29 has a SSVR of 52.6 and a HCVAP of 26 percent. In Mrs. Dukes' map the District 29 SSRV drops to 34.6 percent and its HCVAP drops to 38 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So are you talking about the VAP numbers or are you talking about SSVR numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I thought I was pretty clear, Mr. Hildebrand. I was talking about the SSVR number --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Because I've got a benchmark that shows 29 --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: And I know you have an amendment that has some similar concerns, but this particular map really --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: But it doesn't do anything about District 34 in your map, or 35 in your map?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Neither the new District 35 in this particular map nor --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Does her amendment impact your 35?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I'm sorry, what?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Does her amendment, does the amendment before us affect your -- the Solomons map with regard --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: In District 35, Mr. Hildebrand, the SSVR is 41.8 percent and its HCVAP is 45.6 percent. And neither district reaches the 50 percent threshold.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: All right.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you. I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Dukes to close.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. I'm not quite certain where Representative Solomons pulls his numbers, and sometimes I wonder about the concern put forth on minority communities when Congressional District 29 is used as the litmus test for what is considered retrogression. One arguably can state something quite different. But here is the deal: There are plenty of maps that could be drawn that are fair and legal. And there are plenty of opportunities where the resources that Chairman Solomons had, and the committee had, to have drawn fair and legal maps; as Representative Martinez Fischer stated, there were far more resources that were available to draw fair and legal maps. But Senate Bill 4 chose not to. The purpose of the republican map, Senate Bill 4, is to ensure minority voices are not heard in Congress in the strength that their numbers in Texas require. Enough voters, specifically as it relates to the Dukes plan in Travis County, there are enough voters for congressional districts entirely within Travis county lines. Travis county has more than a million people --
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Speak er?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Rodriguez?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: And a congressional district is only 698,488 --
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Rodriguez?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Would Mrs. Dukes yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mrs. Dukes, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Can you give me just one second?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Not at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: If you look at the difference in how folks are treated in Travis County by Senate Bill 4, all you would have to do is look at the map and drive up I-35 from the south to the north, where presently the maps that our congressmen run in have Austin divided into four different district, as Representative Naishtat explained to you. Under this new plan of Senate Bill 4, in eastern Travis county, where I have lived, my parents have lived, my great -- my grandparents have lived, my great grandparents have lived; in the minority portion of eastern Travis county, you will now drive in and out of nine twisted congressional districts. It doesn't sound like whoever drew this map was too concerned about minority communities and retrogression. Now look at western Travis County where the majority population is an Anglo community. It sits entirely in one district. But eastern Travis county, where African Americans and Hispanics live is drawn into nine separate in and out Congressional Districts. Why the difference? Hispanics and African Americans are cut into all of these divided districts; north, south, east and west, to eliminate a voice that is purposely drawing African Americans and Hispanics into smaller portions and separation to create a GOP plan of purposeful discrimination. This map is not about ensuring one member of Congress does not have a voice in Washington, it is about ensuring that African Americans and Hispanics from eastern Travis county, from east Austin, will be unable to have a candidate of their choice to represent them in Washington. This plan, Senate Bill 4, purposefully denies my family, Eddie's family, and many other families a chance to send their favorite candidate to Congress for a decade. And, with that, Mr. Speaker, I do yield to my colleague from Travis County.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentle lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Dawnna, thank you for doing this amendment. I think it's important. Can you tell the members a little bit more? I know that Elliot talked about it a little bit, but that's coalition, isn't there, that minorities, African Americans, Hispanics have with Anglo voters as well, to elect people of all colors and races to elected office in Travis county; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: For years, eastern Travis county, African Americans and Hispanics have had a gentleman's agreement of coalition building. And in that gentleman's agreement of coalition building we have collectively worked back to the first African American who was ever elected to the Austin City Counsel, and the first Hispanic to be elected to the Austin City Counsel, to build the coalitions to elect candidates of our choice. And, with that, within Travis county and coalition building with Anglo voters, we have been able to elect Gonzalo (inaudible) to represent us in the Senate. Wilhelmina Delco to represent us in the House, when it was an at large Travis County, versus a single member plan. We have been able to elect former Austin Mayor Gus Garcia. We have been able to elect county wide Travis County Attorney David Escamilla. We've been able to elect Travis County Judge Sam Biscoe, and numerous other county judges that were African American and Hispanic into office through this coalition building. But by the separation of placing African Americans and Hispanics in a total of nine different connected districts, along eastern IH-35, it is as bad as the slap of discrimination to African Americans and Hispanics in Travis County who couldn't get electrical hook up prior to 1940 if they lived in west Austin. So you couldn't get electricity back then, but now your vote will be basically eliminated through the electric shock of being drawn into nine separate districts, purposefully, to eliminate the voice.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Would you agree with me that the African American community and the Hispanic community are empowered in Travis county and in Austin?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Absolutely. If it were not the case everyone wouldn't come to the African American Hispanic community collectively to get the support in order to be elected throughout the county. It is very well respected in Travis county, extremely well.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Sorry to interrupt you. What would you say the Solomons map does to our power in Austin, Travis County?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: I would say that it disrespects the voice of a certain segment of the community. If you look at the Solomons map you can see in western Travis county a block, a contiguous block without interruption of Anglo votes. It also takes all votes of rural Anglos and makes sure there is no separation there. But when it comes to urban county of Travis and the African American, Hispanic areas east of I-35, it purposefully carves it apart, driving from nine separate districts from south to north to ensure that there is no ability to have a community of interest voting together, to have representation of its choice. It purposefully discriminates.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I agree. When it comes to redistricting, Mrs. Dukes, it seems like messing with Austin is what goes on here. It's just not right. And it's not even about Austin, I agree with you, it's about the minority community in Austin.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: About the minority community in Austin, because it ensures that there's no separation of the the Anglo community in west Austin. And that's -- Things like this are the whole reason why the Voting Rights Act exist. But when you carve up district to ensure that people who need protection from the Voting Rights Act will not have any influence on who they vote for to represent them in Washington, you are purposefully creating discrimination. It is purposeful discrimination against eastern Travis County, African American and Hispanic voters, to prevent us from having a voice in Washington.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for standing up for minorities in Austin.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you. And, with that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the membership to vote against motion to table and to vote for a fair and legal map that does not create a purposeful discrimination against African Americans and Hispanics.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Members, Mrs. Dukes sends up an amendment. Mr. Solomons moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. This is a record vote. Record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. All those in favor vote aye, those, no, note nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 93 ayes and 45 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, we're on Mr. Hildebrand's Plan 161. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Hildebrand.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Mr. Hildebrand.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. The amendment that we have before us is Plan 161. Mr. Speaker, members, the map before the House is amended. I've got concerns about -- in Congressional Districts 15, 20 and 28 on the number of Spanish surname voters registration, SSVR. And I've got a number of concerns our map. I think it can be improved. Maybe it will be improved in conference. I know that Chairman Solomons, his approach to these, if you look at the State House map, was to continue to evolve the map and keep making changes to it; just as he's done today. But even with the changes today, and he may have plans to make some more at another opportunity, the benchmark for the Hispanic districts in CD15, CD16, CD20, CD23, CD34, CD28, CD29, and CD35 in his map before us, we do better in the amendment before you, 161, in every -- and we create -- we do as good as he does in the existing districts. And we add one more voting rights performing district, 35, that's open district, brand new Hispanic district; that has 57.4 percent SSVR. So the big changes are we elect about the same partisan split, but we add one more Hispanic seat to the map, which is a performing district. Also, the amendment, besides creating a performing a Hispanic district in District 35, it also -- CD35 and SB4 only has 43.8 percent SSVR based on Loulack* vs. Perry U.S. Supreme Court made an action that said that at least 50 percent of the SSVR we needed at least 50 percent to be a performing district. So we've upped those numbers to make sure we've met that standard. And we've continued to basically provide a map that I think accomplishes the objectives of, in many ways, Mr. Solomons. But does it a little differently. And I offer this as an alternative for y'alls consideration, and welcome any debate or dialogue on it or answer any questions.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker ?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Be glad to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Chairm an, looking at the map I understand what you're trying to accomplish. I just would note as a good rule member like you, that I look at CD 10 and there is not one whole county in CD 10. It cuts across one, two, three, four rural counters and you sliced them in half, every one of them.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I'll tell you what, that'd be -- If this map were going to make it further in the process I would be very interested in refining that for your -- to contribute towards your point of view of how that could be improved.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes, sir, I just --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I mean you understand the odds.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I do. I note that in your area -- I think that would be -- is that CD25? I see a whole lot of rural counties out there.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yeah, isn't that nice? Isn't that pretty?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yeah, that's a pretty --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: All that west of 35 looks real pretty. It's very, very rural and compact and looks good.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: East of 35 --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: But we need to have your input on the eastern half to make yours look more like the western half of the state does.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Right. Right. I would say that the counties I represent would not be real thrilled with this map.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: And I pledge to you that this becomes -- if this advances in some way, either today or emerges somewhere else, I'd be happy to work with you and get your suggestions; just as I would on at least three other members that have come up to me with -- and yours -- you know when you do a statewide map there's different areas of the state, you're not going to please everybody.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: What I'm trying to do is meet the same objectives that the chairman did in terms of performance, both politically and Voting Rights Act. And I think equally, or come close to equally on political performance, but I exceed his performance in the Voting Rights Act and doing the things we need to strengthen our case so that we have a map that will be approved and get preclearance. And, obviously, if this map were to get more serious consideration and, for instance, if the chairman were going accept it or try to amend it and approve it, I would want to address your concerns and address the concerns of other members for their local areas.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. You know, as rural members and as -- Sylvester calls us the poor man's caucus, we have to work on this a little bit. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Absolute ly.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Orr?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Hildebra nd?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I'd be happy to.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Chairman, I guess I have the same issues as --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: You don't like Johnson being split?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Is that your concern?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: As a whole county we worked very hard to make sure that Johnson county wasn't split. Now you've got us moved into a District 11 that goes all the way to the New Mexico border.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: No, it doesn't. Oh, that. I see. You're talking about 11? Yeah, 25 it looks really nice on 25.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: And we were in District 25 before you cut us out and sent us to New Mexico.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Let me -- Let me -- As you know, if that was my choice, we wouldn't split any rural county. However, because of the deviation, the zero deviation that's required for congressional maps, you're going split some. And what I would just tell you is I understand, I wouldn't like splitting on of my counties, some of the the other maps we've seen, they've been offered, Mr. Alonzo and others split my counties. I didn't like that. I certainly accept and appreciate that you wouldn't want your county split. But somebody's county is going to be split. In the map that is before us that this attempts to amend we split Eagle Pass in half, we split other counties. So, unfortunately, it's unavoidable. But, again, if the map ends up being more seriously considered I would certainly want to address your concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: I appreciate it very much.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speak er, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Be happy to.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Harvey, in regards to Bexar County in your map, there is no single district that is wholly within Bexar County; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: How many -- How many in Mr. Solomons' map is that way? Does he have one that is totally in Bexar County?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yes. It's --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Is that from his amendment or district?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: It's also still in his amendment, it's District 20. It's actually the first Hispanic --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: He put this back whole in his, it wasn't whole in the committee?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: No, it was. District 20 was always whole.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Oh, District 20. On Mr. Gonzalez?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Yeah, yeah. Gonzalez. And in this map it takes his district --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Moves it north. It kind of replaces his District 35. And let me tell you, that's a trade off, and I understand. You and I talked about it earlier. That's a trade off. Under his map you get a District 35 that has Travis and Bexar County in it. It has maybe two to one Bexar County over Travis in the I-35 corridor. And, in this case, what we do is we have 20 going to Travis, but we create a brand new District 35 that is a voting rights performing Hispanic district that is 57.4 percent Spanish surname voter registration. And so it's a trade off, yeah. You don't get a whole twenty in all of Bayer, but you get a brand new district and you keep a district that I think Mr. Gonzalez can win.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: The District 35 is the population based in Webb County for Bexar County.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Bexar - - And, by the way, when you talk about CD 20, in the C149 with the C170 added, it's about 54.1 and -- I'm sorry, 55.6. And so in this, in this CD 20 that you don't like, because it goes north, is 54.6. So it's basically for a one percentage trade down in that district still performing, you get a brand new district, CD35, that goes from 43.8 in the map before us, and in the amendment goes to 57.4.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I'm going to vote against your amendment because of how it kind of rips apart Bexar County.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I completely understand.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I just want to say that I do like what you've done to 23, which is keep Maverick.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Right. And you agree that --
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: -- all in the 23. And based on I think the numbers that you gave me, you do improve the 23rd. But, you know, unfortunately, I think the way we need to resolve this is ultimately in the courts, and improving all these districts.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Sheffield raises a point of order, the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Members, the following amendment is an amendment to Plan 161. This is amendment Plan number 181. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hildebrand.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Chair recognizes Mr. Hildebrand.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this is author's perfecting amendment. It basically deals with CD23 and has very minor changes, but it does execute or basically accomplishes my objectives of what I've been talking about. And it refines that district, it overlaps into a couple of other districts where there are minor changes in the district for us. What I ask is to adopt this and then discuss the amendment with Mr. Solomons, as amended, so I'd like to move adoption of the the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Hildebra nd sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Mr. Villarreal, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Before we adopt this amendment to the amendment I just have --
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Hildebra nd, do you yield? Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Tell me what are you doing to CD23.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yeah, CD23. Basically we don't change the Hispanic numbers, but we basically exchange some precincts that makes it political number for the -- using the McCain number. Go up from 48, which it is in current law. It is about a 48 percent McCain district today. Under my original amendment it was about a 48 percent McCain district. We will make it about a 49 percent McCain district. The plan before us is a 52 percent McCain district. So it slightly improves the McCain number in 23, but not as much as the Solomon map before you.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Move adoption of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Representati ve Hildebrand sends up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. We're now on the Hildebrand amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Mr. Martinez Fischer to speak against.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you Mr. Speaker. Members, well, you know they say if you can't beat them join them. So I rise to stand with Chairman Solomons in opposition to the Hildebrand map. Thank you. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Cha irman, will he yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Mr. Fischer, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Yes , I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Man, you don't look nearly as good this way. You're not nearly as pretty.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: It' s okay. You're getting old. How many fingers am I holding up?
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: What what's your -- I guess I'll go ahead and let you lay it out, but I want to ask you about what your concerns are, because I've got some answers for you.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I think that -- Let me just lay this out. Thank you, Harvey. I'm opposing the amendment because it does a couple of things that I think is problematic. But, over all, Chairman Hildebran's layout I agree with. I think this is a much better approach in theory to drawing more minority opportunity districts. But the devil is in the details and there's a couple of things that it does that I'm troubled with. We voted for the Dawnna Dukes, or I voted to vote no on the motion to table on the Dukes amendment, because it actually increased the number of African American and Hispanic voting age population districts than the Solomons map. This one actually reduces it and lowers it to 12.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Dependi ng on how you count those.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: One of the bigger issues, though, that I'm concerned about, it that while it create as new SSVR district, it does so by taking the 20th Congressional in San Antonio, and taking part of it and running it north to Austin and then the other part of it running it south to Laredo. And while, you know, that's -- I'm not adverse to districts being cut like that, but we've done that in our maps and obviously, if you're from Travis County, you've seen that done in almost every amendment that's been brought to the floor. What's concerning about it is in Loulack* versus Perry, the United States Supreme Court said unequivocally that Webb county is a constitutionally protected community of interest. And so by splitting that community of interest I believe you open up that challenge once again. I think we go backwards and not forward. Now, I'm happy to work with Harvey and his folks if he really wants to draw a better --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Spe aker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I got to ask you well, you just commented about the Webb County split. I'm aware, that's been on the floor, people are talking about it. I've got to make it very clear, you are aware the difference between what this split accomplishes in Webb County, and what the one ten years ago accomplished; because they are completely different, apples and oranges in the sense of what they result in. This one results in a brand new performing Voting Rights Act Hispanic district. That one did not. This one improves Hispanic voting opportunities, it doesn't decreased them. That one did. And that's night and day, clear as can be; that there's a complete difference between what this split does and what that one did. And, as you know, Mr. Solomon splits Eagle Pass in half, and so the county next door, Maverick County is split in half right there in the middle of the city. And, in our case, we split the rural part along the border to create a brand new Hispanic district, and that is completely different than what they did the last time when this was a court issue.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Rig ht. I know. And I think it's -- Being respectful, I think it's a distinction without a difference. While it still creates a new minority district, I'm not on the Supreme Court and you're not either, but what they say in the opinion is they say Webb County is a community of interest and so --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Would Eagle Pass be?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Well , and it may be. And I can tell you --
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I mean it split Eagle Pass in half.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I can tell you based on what the Supreme Court has already said they've made it very clear on what the position is with respect to Webb.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: So does the Supreme Court think people in the community interest in Webb County is more important than the community interest in Maverick County?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I think that's a question for the court. I don't know that. But I know is what the opinion says, and the opinion says Webb County is constitutionally protected as a community of interest, and you couldn't split it. Now if you are splitting it for a different reason I still you think open it up for debate, you open it up for litigation. But, over all, when you reduce your PHVAP to a number lower than Solomons it's problematic. And when you plus up an SSVR district by taking a Hispanic district as it exists, and then splitting it into two different communities, into two different directions; one of those communities being protected by the Supreme Court and it's opinion on Loulack* versus Perry, I think that, as some people used to say around here, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. This is not something that you want to litigate over and over again. If Harvey wants to, I would be happy to work with Chairman Hildebran to draw a map that conforms to the principals of creating more minority opportunities, I know he feels that he's very -- I've listened to him, I know he feels like this map does better than Senate Bill 4. I think we can bring him back a better map that does better than this and Senate Bill 4, and I am happy to work with him on it, whether we do it on third reading or whether we do it as we head down the litigation track. So, with that, I'm asking you to work in a bipartisan manner with Chairman Solomons and I, and vote no -- I mean vote against the Hildebrand -- or -- I wasn't going move to table, I'll let Chairman Solomons do it. Thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. I don't know what to say. I have some similar concerns that Mr -- that Trey had on the plan about splitting Webb County and the City of Laredo. We got beat up on that quite a bit by the U.S. Supreme Court on the history. And Harvey tried to talk a little bit about it, it's a little different. But I do have to agree with Trey about the difference with distinction or without a distinction. But let me just tell you also what the map also does, it splits Arlington so certain items -- certain event centers and -- can be cherry picked for a certain district. It is -- The SSVR in District 20, I'm got some real concerns over, because under his amendment the total voter registration, SSVR, is actually lower than District 20, 54.6 percent to 55 -- Well, it went from 55.6 percent, is actually lower than the amendment I introduced earlier to fix that. And I don't really see any reason to split the City of Arlington and, quite frankly, think it drops the numbers for -- Congressional District 23 is dropped below 50 percent. And it's just -- I don't see any reason to do this amendment. And so I would hope that you stick with me this time on a motion to table.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hildebrand to close.
REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I'll close. But I do want to go through a few numbers. CD15, and this is the Congressional District Hispanic seats benchmark, we have 70.7 in CD15; 67.6 in CD16; 58.1 in CD20 and CD23, 52. CD34, 59.4 and CD28, 65.6; CD29, 51.3. And then we have a new CD35 that doesn't have one, because it's not a part of the existing bench. In Mr. Solomons amendment he basically lowers it in CD15 by four points. He raises it by one point in CD16. He lowers it by two in a half to three points in CD 20. He lowers it in -- CD -- he raises it two points in CD23. And he raises it about 11, 12 points in CD34. And in 62.8 he -- I mean in CD28 he raises it about almost three points. In CD29 he stays the same and in the brand new district, CD35, he has a 43.8 percent SSVR. What we have in ours is basically 14 points better in CD35, and improves in a couple of areas and slightly lowers in a couple of the other districts. So in this comparison between the benchmark and Mr. Solomons amendment and CD161, we perform better. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, members, I wanted to make sure that we had an alternative map offered by republican. On the record, I have accomplished that, so at this time I withdraw the amendment because it will be a part of the record.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. Members, that concludes the amendments. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the bill? Chair recognizes Representative Dukes to speak against the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I rise to speak against Senate Bill 4 because I feel -- I know that there could be a plan that is drafted that does a far better job on ensuring that the Voting Rights Act is being met, and ensuring every citizen in Texas has an opportunity to be represented in Washington by some -- by an individual who represents their voice. More specifically, the purpose of the republican plan, Senate Bill 4, has been to discriminate. It takes African American voters who live in Travis County, who I represent, who are currently able to elect the candidate of their choice, and ensures that for the next ten years that we won't have a voice in Washington. If you just look at the disparity in how the minority communities were treated in Travis county under Senate Bill 4's map, and follow I-35 from south of Travis to the north of Travis and will you drive in and out of nine varying congressional districts. Now compare that to western Travis County, where predominately Anglos live. What do you see? That a portion of Travis divided into nine districts, seven districts, three districts; now is whole, entirely contained within a single congressional district. And that's no coincidence. It's plain and simple that this plan was motivated by discrimination. Which races bear the more heavily burden of this plan? Not Anglos in Carter's district. If you look how nice and neatly they have been drawn, and there's Anglo families in Williamson County and Bell County. Not rural Anglos. Look at how in the committee the republicans worked to ensure that rural Anglos in Colorado County would join with other rural Anglos. But now look at the mess that it is in Travis County where African Americans, Hispanic and Anglos who routinely join together to elect individuals from all races were cut into five different congressional districts. The way minorities and Anglos vote together in Travis is the way that it's supposed to be in America. Travis County gets it right. And that is why Senate Bill 4 is so wrong. The illegal map is not about getting rid of a single congressional, that's just an excuse. It's much bigger than one person. As much as this individual articulates for our community, SB 4 is not about silencing the voice of one elected official. It is about silencing the voice of a whole community. And we have worked too hard for so long to build a successful coalition in Travis County, in east Austin, and that is why using partisanship as an excuse SB 4 has schemed so hard beyond closed doors to ensure that no African American and no Hispanic from Austin will be able to have a voice from Austin in Congress. If you look at how this plan was passed, a public hearing called on short notice then canceled. The public House hearing was called on less than 24 hour notice during the middle of the work, when working families are doing just that, working. No hearings were held around the state. That was done before. And all the testimony heard from folks who actually live here went in one ear and out the other, because the hearing was only a shadow, a route box process, a box to be checked; because we always knew they weren't going to let a plan pass that preserved the voice of Austin minorities. No enforceable racial zoning law could have been drawn with the precision that SB 4 uses to segregate African Americans, pairing Austin's African American families with Cleeburn and Burlisson in Johnson County cannot be viewed in any way but as an attempt. And it was. It would be a successful attempt to completely eliminate the political voice in Congress. You could erect a sign at the ballot box that says blacks need not vote, and it wouldn't be as effective at eliminating our ability to meaningfully participate as this map does. I have no doubt that the Justice Department will put a stop to SB 4's discriminatory map. I know that privately some republicans will tell me that they know it has gone too far. But for them it wasn't about doing what's right or what is fair. It's all about doing as much as we could get away with. Well, there is a reason that we still have the Voting Rights Act, and when some folks say we no longer need it, my response is just look at the discriminating map in SB 4. It is exactly this sort of purposeful discrimination that the Voting Rights Act serves to protect. And that's why they don't want African Americans to be able to elect folks who understand the importance of the the Voting Rights Act. So pass this illegal map because you have the votes, but thank goodness you haven't succeeded in repealing the Voting Rights Act and the judicial review. I would urge you to vote no against SB 4.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I came before you earlier and, as Mr. Chisum pointed out, out it was kind of like cheerleading. And the answer is yes, it was cheerleading, because I'm cheerleading for what's right, I'm cheerleading for an opportunity to have more opportunity to have minority districts, and specifically cheerleading for my north Texas area to make sure north Texas has an Hispanic opportunity district. And I'm going to do these closing remarks in two parts: First, I'm going to remind you that I presented a plan, an alternative plan to this current plan. The Alonzo-Veasey plan. The Alonzo-Veasey plan, which was a joint author between -- showing members -- showing that Hispanics and African Americans working together in making sure -- in making sure that we propose plans, and specifically the Alonzo plan that creates an opportunity for four additional Hispanic opportunity districts; an additional black opportunity district in north Texas and, as I pointed out, definitely in north Texas the Hispanic opportunity plan. And I went step by step. And, in addition, members, I pointed out that in Austin Texas in Travis County area has a strong history of coalition voting. The county has elected Hispanics to the State Senate, and there's a multi ethnicity of county and city office holders. Six current countywide elected officials are Hispanic. This plan places Congressional District 25 almost entirely in Travis County, incorporating the most politically incohesive neighborhoods in the county in adding Hispanic growth neighborhoods in Hays and Williamson County. It enhances the HVAP Congressional District 25 by 5 percent. So, members, what it does is talk about four Hispanic additional opportunity districts, an additional coalition African American district in Tarrant County, it talks about how Hispanics and minorities work together to elect their selection of choice -- of choice, in Travis county. And lastly, members, I mentioned that one of the areas in Texas that we cannot forget is west Texas. West Texas, west Texas. And in this proposal that I present to you, in Congressional District 19, west Texas, we have a district that's an emerging Hispanic district that will allow, as time goes by, for Hispanics to be elected or for Hispanics to have an opportunity to elect a person of their choice. So, members, to support my position I will make Exhibit No. 1 part of the record, which are my comments on my presentation. Number two, members, one of the the discussion that is we had was whether the plan created an opportunity district. And I pointed out that in the Congressional District that I proposed in District 23, former State Representative Noriega got 60 percent. In Congressional Proposed District 34, former State Representative Noriega got 63 percent, and in Congressional District 35 he got 63.4, and in Congressional District 36 he got 51.9 percent. So I submit that, members, as Exhibit No. 2 in support of my position. Thirdly, members, thirdly, one of the discussions in Travis county, and in Travis county I presented an exhibit that shows when Doggett/Hinojosa ran for Congress, the candidate of the choice was Doggett. What we have said all along, what we have said all along is that we want an opportunity. So that being said, members, I present Exhibit No. 3. Thank you, madam. Now, members, let me speak about the proposed district. The proposed district, Senate Bill 4 is over reaching, and has been pointed out by Chairman Solomons; the main people that they listened to were the incumbent congressmen. And even though they listened to the incumbent congressmen, we still proposed districts taking them to consideration, but we were more concerned about the four additional congressional districts. That being said, members, I believe -- I believe that the plan proposed by Chairman Solomons, Senate Congressional proposal Senate Bill Number 4 is retrogressive. Number two, Number two, congressional -- Senate Bill 4 also has Section 5 violations. Because the current congressional district to congressional maps, eleven district where minority holders have been able to elect the candidate of their choice within the decade. Under the Seliger-Solomons plan there are only ten districts where minorities would have an opportunity to elect the candidate of choice. One less than the current plan, even though four additional congressional districts were apportioned in Texas solely because of the population. The other point I want to point out, members, there's a Section 2 violation, given the presence of alternative plans the willful decision by the authors to reduce the number of effective minority opportunities districts, when additional district could have been drawn clearly, violates the Voting Rights Act. That being said, members, between 2000 and 2010 the Anglo population in Dallas and Tarrant Counties decreased by 600,000. Only 41 percent of the population is Anglo, but the republican plan, Anglos will control seven of eight districts in north Texas. 87 percent. Members, that is not right. That being said, members, instead of giving you a five minute speech I'm going submit this as Exhibit No. 4. Exhibit 4, members. Thank you, Mrs. Thompson. Lastly, members, my final exhibit -- my final exhibit, my final exhibit. I'm going to label it Exhibit No. 5. This exhibit, members, is a letter from the state demographer. All session long -- all session long -- all session long we've talked about the numbers, the numbers, the numbers. The population increased close to four million. Hispanics, close to 3 million. That's the main point we've been trying to make all session long, all session long, about the increase of Hispanics, African Americans and Asians. Just to make it easier, members, I sent it through the internet so you can read it on your own. That is my final point, this is my final exhibit. I rise again to speak against this plan, please, vote no on the Seliger-Solomons map. Thank you very much, members.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, in the old south politicians used high African American populations in order to continue to send themselves to Congress. The communities that were being discriminated against in the wake of just very blatant and overt discrimination in places like Charleston, South Carolina; Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; places that had large African American populations, the people that went to Congress repeatedly, over and over and over, were people who upheld segregation and were against those communities. Even in the Midwest, some places like Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland, in the wake of the the great migration, politicians there still managed, even with the fast growing numbers of African Americans that continue to move into those cities, the politicians there continued to keep up power and those additional opportunities bottled up for themselves. And that is exactly what this plan does. The Solomons-Seliger's plan, despite the fact that 90 percent of the the growth in this state over the last ten years has been African American and Hispanic, there are three new additional Anglo seats that are being created. I don't understand that math. It's nothing more than discrimination. That is exactly what this plan is all about. Splitting, packing, making it impossible for African American and latino communities to make (inaudible) the candidate of their choice. And the people that get to go to DC, just like back in the old days, are people that are going to be against these very same communities. They are going to up there and vote against things that are important to the African and latino community over and over and over and over again. Times have changed and things are definitely different, but when you look at this plan it definitely could have been concocted out of the 1950s, 1940s. It is no different in regards to that as a long time ago. It ignores the fact that if we were dependent on the Anglo population only, we would probably be losing a seat. But, once again, this plans fails to even take that into consideration. Thank God for the Voting Rights Act and Representative Dukes talked about that a little bit earlier, because I believe that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Section 5 makes this plan blatantly illegal. The other thing that I think is important to point out is that we took field hearings from all around the state, over and over and over again; and one of the things that I'm proud of, and I presented my Texas fair plan earlier today that protected all the incumbents and awarded the seats based on proportion of election what have you, so we could actually have a fair plan and not one that is retrogressive like the one today; is that not only did I listen to the African American and latino residents of our state that came to testify before the redistricting committee, I also listened to the republican communities that are largely Anglo in this state. And I can tell you that in north Texas we had republicans, Anglo republicans from Johnson County, from Hood County, from -- from Johnson County, from Collin County, Denton County; all came and testified and said that they did not want their communities to be paired with citizens in urban Dallas and urban Fort Worth. Exactly what this plan does to dilute votes in those communities, and make those communities less powerful; that is exactly what they've done not only in Dallas-Fort Worth but they did that everywhere. If you look at that time Solomon-Seliger plan there are only ten minority opportunity districts in the entire plan. That's retrogression. The current plan has eleven seats. So not only does this plan go backwards, it -- you would think that there was no African American and no latino growth over the last ten years, but that is just not a fact. And so just like back in the day, in 2011 this plan creates new seats for people who are going to go to Washington and vote against these very same communities that will allow them to go to Congress. And that's just wrong. I urge you to vote no on this plan.
JOE STRAUS: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against the bill? Chair recognizes Representative Solomons to close.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Bef ore the gentleman closes, would he yield for just one or two questions?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Solomons, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you. And again, Burt, I know I've said this both publicly and privately, I know it's not easy chairing redistricting and I know you've worked hard. I know the committees worked hard, the committee staffs, so on and so forth. And even though I know I and other members aren't agreeing with the map that has been produced, we all recognize the effort and the commitment that you and the committee have put into it and so thank you for that. Having said that, here's what my concern is. You and I both were talking about redistricting ten years ago, and we talked about how this went to the courts and from the State Board of Education, the State House, the State Senate; to now we've had lots of discussion about theories. Your theory, or the theory behind SB 4 versus the theory let's say behind the MALK map. And ultimately, and I agree that some other authority, whether it be a reviewing authority like a DOJ or a DC Court or a three judge panel in the U.S. Supreme Court, somebody is going to have a final say other than us. And you agree with that?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: There is an appellate process. As an attorney, there is an appellate process. You do have another set of eyes down the road that will look at what you're doing, that's why it's so important for I think the committee, both committees, both in the Senate and the House, to try come up with the fairest and legal plan that we could. You and I both know that you can do things in a lot of different ways, but we think this map will hold up. You may differ in that, and some of the groups differ. But you and I both know that it's going to be reviewed by other folks.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: And all I'm asking for is -- ten years ago, you know, a group like MALK challenged the LRB map, and we were successful at the United States Supreme Court level. And, as you know, under these federal voting rights cases, MALK became a prevailing party. And as a prevailing party they were entitled to their court awarded attorney's fees, expert fees, and all their costs for litigation. And you may or may not know this, because the back story, after it was all said and done, we were awarded those fees and costs that we were entitled to, as the prevailing party, and then we had to sue the State of Texas to collect them because, at that time, Attorney General appealed. And we had that petition before the United States Supreme Court just on attorneys fees. Nothing else. We had already won, the maps were fixed, all of the fighting was done; it was just now paying the bill. And all I want from you is to know that if that were to happen again, that we could get your commitment to work with us, to work with the State of Texas and make sure that if MALK prevails, or any other group that is entitled to relief, that you work with us to see that we get what we're entitled to so that we're not fighting these things on shoe string budgets. And that we don't have limited resources. And, should we prevail, would you commit to do your part to help us seek the relief that we're entitled to if it's awarded by a court?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I am not sure how I can do, that's the -- up to the Attorney General to decide on whether or not they think that the costs would be too high. A lot of times, as you well know, in civil rights cases and other types of issues on the federal level especially, that that goes to whether or not the parties believe they may be entitled to those attorney's fees, but there's some issue about the amount of the the attorney's fees. Certainly, you know, after all the tort reform we've had around here, about prevailing parties and so forth, I'm sure that that's going to be part of the mix.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Wel l, just, you know, keeping it consistent with the loser pay philosophy. You know?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Tort reform.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: But being clear, on this issue ten years ago the Court decided, they set an amount. It was a judgment.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I wasn't aware of that, I really didn't have that background. I know when Pete walked up he was going, you know, that's true. I believe you. You know, if that's the case and that's what happens in those cases, that's fine. Certainly, if the attorney fees are reasonable and the expenses are reasonable I would think that the Attorney General would want to work with the parties, but I can't really comment on what the Attorney General would or would not do.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Speak er?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Oh, of course.
JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Solom on, the last time that we went through this process the Mexican American caucus did, in fact, prevail. And the Court's ordered the awarding of attorney's fees. And, at that point, the leadership and the Attorney General made a decision not to pay the attorney's fees. And, essentially, the goal was, deliberate in my view, to punish the caucus or to break the caucus. And I would hope, financially, because of the out pouring of the the money, the outlay of cash that had gone into the litigation. And so I would hope that you would at least be willing to go with the members of MALK, and have the conversations with the Attorney General about the appropriateness of following the court orders. Because, frankly, had it ended up on the issue of attorney's fees, because that was only issue that would have gone back up to the Supreme Court, had the State would have been sanctioned for something so frivolous; talk about a frivolous lawsuit of just going up on the issue of attorney's fees and wasting the Supreme Court's time. So I would hope that at least be willing to go with the members of MALK and talk to the appropriate -- whether it be the Attorney General or the Governor or whoever about the appropriateness of ending the litigation. When it's over, it's over. And the cards fall where the cards fall. And we pay the bills accordingly. And I would hope you would be able to help do that.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I generally have found in federal cases, if you prevail, you can argue about the amount; but usually the courts are going to go along and award the prevailing party in those kinds of cases attorney's fees --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: And when the court has set the amount --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: And --
REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: When the Court has reviewed the bills and set the amount --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Right. I can't -- And you know and I know I can't speak on behalf of what the Attorney General down the road will do.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: Absolutely . And all we're asking is that you --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: But let me just say this, as an attorney, as someone who is in his younger days actually tried cases; listen, I'm always for the awarding of reasonable attorney's fees.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: And so I would hope, again -- We're not -- Obviously, none of us have the authority to commit the Attorney General. But, at the appropriate -- And, frankly, this Attorney General, on his first day in office is the guy who signed the order paying us the attorney fees and, personally, I'll be forever grateful for that. But I would be hopeful that you would be willing to engage the Attorney General in conversation on our behalf. And I think that's the question that, if the circumstances merit that.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Well, I'm kind of hoping that you don't prevail, but if you do I'll certainly consider it, Pete.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Solomon.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I do.
JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Mr. Solomons, did you adhere to the republican doctrine back in 2003 when the mid decade redistricting was done, that the percentage of seats should be awarded based on statewide election totals? And what I mean by that is one of the things that we heard over and over in 2003 was that 50 percent of Texas voters voted an average of 50 some odd percent in state wide elections for republican candidates. So, therefore, that percentage of the congressional seats should be awarded to those candidates. Was that a philosophy that you bought into back in 2003?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: You know, I vaguely remember 2003 and congressional redistricting. I wasn't really part of that. I remember that we had -- It was very contentious in 2003 in congressional redistricting. A lot of arguments were made. I'm sure that was one of them. I know you've tried to make that record on your Texas Fair plan, as well as what we're doing here on this plan. So I'm not here to countermand you. I just don't remember distinctly 2003 and what specific arguments were made.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Okay. The other question that I had for you was, of course, you've heard that 90 percent of the the growth in the state has been non Anglo, that 90 percent of the the growth in the past ten years has been Hispanic, African American and Asian American. I want to specifically ask you about the metroplex. Of course, you know the metroplex is the fastest growing Hispanic area in the entire country, and the second fastest growing African American area in the entire country. You have 2.1 million residents that are African American or Hispanic that live in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. How do you justify drawing only one seat for such a large group?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Well, we drew other seats in the other parts of the state and you have an opportunity to decide where you want to put seats. There is some concern about Hispanic citizen voting age population, versus raw numbers from the black community. You have mostly there are citizens. And you look at the total population you look, if you look at the voting age population as well and the totality. But, in context, this is the map that we came up with. I know that your position is very strong about creating another Hispanic or majority opportunity, minority-majority opportunity seat in the Fort Worth metroplex; but I think that what we did in the map was fair, it's legal. And, as you well know, and as Mr. Martinez Fischer alluded to, we're probably going to go to the courts and decide if in fact we're right on this issue, that we can put the seats where we put the seat in the context of the entire state.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Well, I guess more specifically, because I know that y'all have been able to sort of manipulate and be a little misleading with the SSVR and the HCVAP. But I wanted to ask you about the Section 2 African American --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I don't think we've been misleading. Those are the real numbers. Now we can argue how important they are, but they are the real numbers. They are part of a greater progression of items that you look at in redistricting. I've never served on redistricting before. This is my first session. All I wanted to do, if you recall, I think I told every member of this house, the only thing I wanted to do was be on the committee. But somehow in doing this, as a chair I've had to learn a few things; and one of them is that there are a number of traditional redistricting matters that you look at, not all of it is reliant on the numbers. But the numbers are very important. And that's what we've relied on heavily, is the numbers, as well as the other traditional items that you look at in redistricting. With the AGs office looking behind our shoulders, and litigation counsel and all the people that were far greater experienced than maybe you or I in what you really look at to take a map and you know it's going to be reviewed by the DOJ or the federal courts. And so you try to draw up a map that you can think you can defend, that you think is fair and that you think is legal.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: And those are arbitrary numbers. But let me specifically ask you about the Section 2, African American district that I drew in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. Once again, you have the opportunity to easily draw a Section 2 district in the metroplex. There's already one Section 2 African American district that Congresswomen Eddie Bernice Johnson represents, she's obviously not happy with the plan that -- SB 4, that you have today. Why didn't you draw a second Section 2 African American district on the metroplex when you could have easily done so, instead of trying to pack all of those African American residents into one district?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I understand, and I think the members of this body understand this is not just Senator Seliger's map, this not just Representative and Chairman Solomons's map. It is a map that comes out of both the bodies of the House and the respective committees. It's not just our idea on how we decided on what we were going to do as individuals do; it was a body proposed map. You know, we can make proposals. We all make proposals, you made proposals. And if the body didn't want to go with that proposal it would be a body and committee matter. It's not just one individual or two individuals making all the decisions in this case. And yes, I will yield.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Yes, I do.
JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Thank you. Chairman Solomons, I have a quick question about communities of interest. And I was wondering, in urban areas, did you have a particular test that would constitute a community of interest? Was there any particular type of test that would apply in an urban area?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Just the variety of numbers and the variety of -- just a matter of input from the various incumbents and the various constituents and public, trying to look at communities of interest. You also have to look at where all the numbers really are. And most of them, as you know, now this state is just now not a pure, rural state or even a division. It's become an urban state and you go where the numbers are.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: And you have split some, you have to split some precincts, you have to split some tracts, some communities. We tried to go on the core -- the core of those communities. We tried to keep those intact. It doesn't mean that you can keep everything intact, but it does mean that you can try to go toward the core of those communities of interest.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: The reason I bring it up, because even though I do appreciate the work that you did to put the Edgewood Independent School District back into our historic congressional, 20th historic congressional district, now our downtown area, San Antonio, the majority of it seems to be into a district that's up into Austin, into Travis county. And so I was concerned that our city, that our downtown San Antonio, I'm not sure how much of a community of interest it is with Travis County. And so I'm concerned that we haven't necessarily applied these community of interest tests effectively. Now the next question I have here is what did you use in order to evaluate whether a given district constituted an effective Hispanic opportunity district? Was it specifically just the Spanish surname voter registration?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Since we are trying to do legislative intent on the record, let me make it clear, once again, to why we did what we did and try to take in a variety of factors. We looked at Hispanic voting population, we looked at Hispanic voting age population, we looked at the SSVR Spanish Surname Voting Population, we looked at Hispanic citizen voting age population. The actual voters. We looked at -- and for a black minority, we looked at black total population, black voting age population. But we did look at, and we had to consider, and we wanted to consider; in fact the bodies, the committees, everybody needs to look at all the various aspects, that includes communities of interest, cores of existing districts, incumbency, compactness, continuity and other traditional redistricting principles. Whatever they are, you have a number of folks who when you look artless things that you have to take into consideration, or try to take into consideration as much of that as you can. So SSVR, although important, is not the sole -- the sole factor. But it's a very important factor. Just as is Hispanic citizen voting age population. You may have a number of Hispanics living in an area, but when you break it down to SSVR and Hispanic voting age populations, those help make some decisions for you on where the line should go.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: So the answer seems to be that it was truly demographic data that was used to sort of determine sort of whether or not an Hispanic performance and an effective Hispanic opportunity district --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Most of redistricting, what I have discovered this session, is about numbers and about legal requirements. And you're trying to draw districts, as imperfect as some may be, and as perfect as some may be; what you're trying to do is look at numbers, numbers, numbers. And then you look at the other areas of concern that you look at in redistricting that I mentioned. And, quite frankly, you try to do the best you can.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Did you use any election data to run through this analysis on the districts?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: We did retrogression analysis based on prior elections, whether they're performing or not, and how that really works. But, you know, we had lege counsel actually performing those. Those tests, those analysis that they do. Which I absolutely cannot describe to you exactly how they do it, but it does go kind of based on back on voting population. For example, what we made some adjustments in your situation, I think we got a ten out of ten. I mean, you know, those things are apparently important to people that look at redistricting from a legal context for retrogression.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Right. So you don't know which election data that they used or which races?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: No, not off the top of my head, no.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: We can --
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I just know they go back to a series of elections, as far back as they can go on that; which is usually around the number ten. It could be six out of seven, it could be, for example, SBOE I remember being six out of seven basically that's what it was at the time. So it just kind of depends on how far they go back. But usually the cut off seems to be around ten, and it could be less. Just depends on I guess how long the district's been there, I suppose.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Did you consult with any of the the sitting congressmen or women of the Texas delegation on the redrawing of the maps?
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Did I?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Yes. I mean, let me, Mr. Menendez, Jose, let me just tell you this: We took your comments -- we took members' comments about -- and they have been talking to their congressmen. Our congressmen in Texas, almost all of them at one time or another, not all, but almost all of them, have either come down here or talked on the phone to various members, including the members of the committee, including some to me. Not all of them, believe it or not, not all of them stopped by to say hello or anything. But a number of them did call, but not all of them. But they did talk in great detail, I think, to some of the members on the committee, and also to members of this body. And also the same on the Senate side.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I guess the question comes from -- certain congressmen don't necessarily know whether they had input. And I guess what you're saying is that my congressman had input through my testimony with you.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Right. Well -- Not every -- Every congressional district changed, it had to change somewhat. And, you know, some congressmen didn't need much change, but some needed a great deal of change. And some districts needed the change. But nobody got exactly what they wanted. Some of them changed more dramatically than others. But they all had a chance to have input as to what they liked and didn't like.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I think the reason that there's some sort of consternation on behalf of the congressman that represents me is that they were 13,000 over in population, and yet they've lost the heart of this downtown area where their office is, where the previous congressman's office is.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: We took into consideration what they liked and what they didn't like, but they all didn't get what they wanted. And some of it was out of need some of it was out of -- well, a lot of it was out of necessity to make numbers work and districts. But we tried to accommodate where we could. But, yes, not everybody is happy with certain areas. They lost this special event center, or they didn't quite get all of downtown over here. But we tried to keep in context the cores of the existing districts as best we could.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I appreciate your time. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you. Members, I really want to thank all the members of the committee on the House redistricting side. Thank Senator Seliger and thank you all for your courtesies and your civilities in dealing with each other on this. I know it's a very personal issue, even on congressional redistricting. And, with that, I would move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker , briefly, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure as a request for the remarks to be drawn and put into the journal, has that been made yet? If not, I would like to make that motion.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Question occurs on passage of Senate Bill 4 to third reading. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay. A record vote has been requested, record vote is granted. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? There being 93 ayes, 48 nays; Senate Bill 4 is passed to third reading.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose? reprsesentative marc: Parliamentary inquiry.
JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Has someone already made the motion to request that all the comments today be reduced to writing and placed in the journal?
JOE STRAUS: I believe that Mr. Menendez just made that.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Okay. Good. Thank you.
JOE STRAUS: He made the motion for today and for third reading tomorrow. Mrs. Giddings, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Parliament ary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Are you aware of the chance for the National Basketball Association?
JOE STRAUS: Being from San Antonio, I'm unfortunately aware. Do you have an announcement to make?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yeah, I think all of my colleagues would like to join me in giving a nice round of applause.
JOE STRAUS: Congratulations to the Dallas Mavericks. Mrs. Thompson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Sp eaker, I wanted to -- Parliamentary inquiry.
JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Is the Chair aware that this is my fourth redistricting session?
JOE STRAUS: That makes sense, yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Then may I ask the House to join me in congratulating Mr. Solomon for a very difficult job. No matter which side you may be on, this is not a easy task. No matter how much your majority may be, it is difficult to do this job. Even though all of it is going to end up in court. But I just wouldn't change --
UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Thank you, Mrs. Thompson. You did a magnificent job. Thank you, Burt.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Calendars to meet while the House is in session at 2:30 p.m. today, June 14th, place 3W15 to consider a calendar.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
CLERK: The Committee on Calendars will meat at 2:20 p.m. on June the 14th, 2011, in room 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider a calendar.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Driver.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DRIVER: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. Members, if I can get your attention for just a moment. I have something that I need to say. This -- If you'll just let me take a moment the address the body. Something of importance to me personally. It's a kind of emotional, it's very personal. I have been looking forward to this moment for a very, very long time. This will sadden some of you and it will make some of you happy and joyful. It's been a long time coming. Many of you, my friends, understand why I'm doing this, but I must say as a lifelong season ticket holder of the Dallas Mavericks, here's a T-shirt that I brought to show you that the Dallas Mavericks are the NBA Champions. And I ordered all of y'all one, and they were all sold out immediately. Helen stole some of my glory. Dallas Mavericks are the NBA champions. We in Dallas and all of Texas are extremely excited. You have to have your first before you have your second, third, forth or fifth.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Menendez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I was going ask the gentleman a question after I congratulate him. Representative Driver, you know it's been my pleasure to sit in that -- sometimes watching those play-offs between the Mavericks and the Spurs. And I was just wondering do you know how many championships reside in the city of -- San Antonio and Bexar County?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DRIVER: I know I've lost money to people out of Bexar County when they played the Mavericks. But this time they weren't anywhere around. We couldn't find them.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: We had the pleasure to allow -- This time we didn't want Dirk to leave and retire crying. We wanted to congratulate you and everybody in Dallas, and we look forward to you trying to catch up.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DRIVER: We have been a long time coming, and it's long suffering. And like I said, I've been paying my money since the Dallas Mavericks came to Dallas.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anderson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Driver, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Mr. Driver , could you let Representative Menendez know just how many football teams that we have in Dallas and they don't have in San Antonio?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DRIVER: College or professional?
REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Either.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DRIVER: Oh, okay.
JOE STRAUS: The gentleman's time has expired.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DRIVER: Thank you. Thank you, members. Congratulations Mavericks.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kuempel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: In the spirit of sports, we know that basketball is just a filler between football and baseball. So we've come up to this point in the college baseball time of year when there have been some teams in the country that made it to the College World Series. One being the Fighting Texas Aggies from Texas A&M. And the other one that we are very familiar with, and I am very proud of, is the University of Texas Longhorns. So join me in wishing them the best of luck. They're not from Texas.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Jackson for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to bring up and consider SCR No. 1.
JOE STRAUS: Members this is a memorial resolution. Please take your seats. Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
CLERK: SCR1 by Carona. In memory of the Honorable John Nesbet Leedom.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Jackson.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Members, the late Senator John Leedom from Dallas served as Dallas County's republican chairman in the 1960s, followed by service on Dallas City Council and then in 1960 -- or 1980, in 1980 he was elected to the Texas State Senate and served 16 years. He mentored a lot of young people, including me, and gave me my first job in politics 47 years ago. I'm pleased today to join with Senator Carona in sponsoring SCR 1 in honoring the life and work of John Leedom. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor please rise. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 20. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB20 by Huberty. Relating to notice required for termination of a teacher's probationary contract or nonrenewal of a teacher's term contract.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Craddick moves to add all members's names to the Resolution, SCR 1. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Huberty.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to postpone this bill until Friday, June 17th at 9:00 a.m.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection. Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 21. Clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB21 by Shelton. Relating to the reduction in force of teachers employed by a school district.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Shelton.
REPRESENTATIVE SHELTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to postpone this bill until Friday morning at 9:00 a.m.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Members, I move to postpone -- No, I'm sorry. I have before me today a special resolution, House Resolution 105.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. Clerk will read the resolution.
CLERK: HR105 by Miller of Comal. Honoring Rear Admiral Jerry R. Kelley on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Navy.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: This resolution is to honor Rear Admiral Jerry Kelley for his twenty years of career as -- in the medical section of the United States Navy. Jerry Kelley also happens to be the uncle of our own Trevor Rice, who is one of our Sergeant at Arms here. And this very Saturday, because of his long distinguished career, he will be honored at the museum in the Pacific museum of the -- Pacific War Museum up in Frederiksberg. And among some of the the decorations that have been conferred upon Admiral Kelley is the Meritorious Service Medal with two gold stars, the Navy Commendations Medal, the Meritorious Unit Citation and many others of his affiliations as a surgeon and the Physicians' Association. So we want to be sure and honor him and thank you. With that, I would move adoption of this resolution.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement, clerk will read the announcements.
CLERK: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence will meet upon adjournment on June the 14th, 2011, at desk No. 92 in the House chamber. This will be a formal meeting to consider HB41 and HB75. The Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence will meet upon adjournment on June the 14th, 2011, in the House chamber at Desk No. 35. This will be a formal meeting to consider HB79.
JOE STRAUS: The following bills on first reading and referral:
CLERK: HB 80 (By Harper-Brown), relating to restrictions on certain private security companies' use of vehicles that mimic law enforcement vehicles. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. HCR 14 (By Raymond), Directing the Texas Historical Commission to work with the City of Austin to honor the memory of President John F. Kennedy with an official Texas Historical Marker at or near the site of the Austin Municipal Auditorium. To Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. HCR 15 (By Coleman), In memory of Pete A. Gallego, Jr., of Alpine. To Rules and Resolutions. HCR 16 (By Craddick), Granting William James Stroman, Jr., permission to sue the State of Texas and the board of regents of The University of Texas. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HCR 17 (By Perry), In memory of Stacy Furdek of Lubbock. To Rules and Resolutions. HJR 13 (By Branch), Proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the election and staggering of terms of county commissioners following a change in boundaries of a commissioners precinct. To Elections. HR 50 (By Schwertner), Congratulating Clarence and Ann Crow of Georgetown on their 60th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 51 (By Hilderbran), In memory of Thomas G. Ratcliffe of Kerrville. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 52 (By Hilderbran), In memory of Elizabeth Ann Liggett of Kerrville. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 53 (By V. Gonzales), Honoring Lauro Solis on his installation as governor of Rotary International District 5930. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 54 (By V. Gonzales), Congratulating Rachelle Grace of McAllen Memorial High School on her receipt of the 2011 H-E-B Excellence in Education Leadership Award in the secondary school category. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 55 (By V. Gonzales), Honoring Ernie Madsen for his nearly eight decades of service to Rotary International. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 56 (By V. Gonzales), Congratulating Taryn B. Millar on earning her doctorate in psychology from George Washington University. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 57 (By V. Gonzales), Commending Judge Rudy Delgado on his selection as the April 2011 Cancer Fighter of the Month by the American Cancer Society of the Rio Grande Valley. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 58 (By V. Gonzales), In memory of Oscar Raul Cardenas of McAllen. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 59 (By V. Gonzales), Congratulating Jan Seale on being named Texas Poet Laureate for 2012. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 60 (By V. Gonzales), Congratulating Las Palmas Healthcare Center in McAllen on earning the Public Information and Education Award from the Texas Health Care Association. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 61 (By V. Gonzales), Congratulating Mariella Gorena on her retirement as principal of Wilson Elementary School in McAllen. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 62 (By Guillen), Honoring Lauro L. Lopez of Rio Grande City for his contributions as a business and civic leader and as a member of the armed forces. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 63 (By Guillen), Honoring Clemente Garza, Jr., and the staff of the Texas Cafe in Rio Grande City for their hard work and entrepreneurial achievements. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 64 (By Guillen), Congratulating Elvia Escobedo, founder of Elvia's Beauty Shop in Rio Grande City. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 65 (By Y. Davis), Congratulating former NFL star Tim Brown of DeSoto on being named a North Texas Father of the Year by the Sylvan Landau Foundation. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 66 (By Menendez), Congratulating Michelle Thomas on her promotion to the position of executive director of financial analysis with AT&T in Dallas and honoring her for her many contributions to the San Antonio community. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 67 (By Giddings), Commending Katherine Hinton-Rosenberg for her service as a legislative intern in the office of State Representative Helen Giddings. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 68 (By Giddings), Commending Clayton Tucker for his service as a legislative intern in the office of State Representative Helen Giddings. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 69 (By Workman), Congratulating Will Hoenig of Lake Travis High School on earning first place in extemporaneous persuasive speaking at the 2011 UIL Conference 4A State Academics Spring Meet. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 70 (By Workman), Congratulating Lake Travis High School on its receipt of the sweepstakes award in speech at the 2011 UIL Conference 4A State Academics Spring Meet. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 71 (By Gooden), Congratulating the Forney High School softball team on its outstanding 2011 season and its appearance in the UIL 4A title game. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 72 (By Guillen), In memory of Juan Caro of Rio Grande City. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 73 (By Guillen), Honoring Dr. Mario E. Ramirez on his contributions to health care in South Texas. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 75 (By Burkett), Congratulating the first graduating class of Sunnyvale High School. To Rules and Resolutions. SB 30 by Shapiro. Relating to the state virtual school network. To Public Education. SB 31 by Shapiro. Relating to the guarantee of open-enrollment charter school bonds by the permanent school fund. To Public Education.
JOE STRAUS: Are there any further announcements? If not, Representative Bonnen and Representative John Davis move that the House stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, in memory of Joe Alvarez, Jr. of Pearland, who passed away today. House stands adjourned.
(The House stands adjourned.)
