Summary
The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting voted 5–3, with one absence, to report House Bill 4 (engrossed) favorably to the full Senate. The bill — a companion to Senate Bill 4 — alters 12 congressional districts and drew criticism over lack of new public hearings and racial impacts in several districts.
The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting voted 5–3, with one member absent, on Aug. 18 to report House Bill 4 (engrossed) favorably to the full Senate, moving the House substitute map forward after debate but no new public testimony.
House Bill 4, the companion to Senate Bill 4, was presented to the committee by Senator King, the Senate sponsor, who said the House Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting and outside counsel drew the revised map and that his counsel had concluded “it complies with all applicable applicable law.” King described the proposal as the plan under “Plan C2333” and said the substitute affected 12 congressional districts while maintaining five districts that “now lean Republican.”
The committee’s action and the map’s details matter because they redraw U.S. House boundaries for Texas residents and could affect partisan balance. Committee members who opposed the motion raised procedural and substantive objections: they said affected constituents had no opportunity to testify on the House substitute, raised concerns about compactness and communities of interest, and cited changes in voting-age population by race in specific districts.
Key provisions and changes discussed
- The substitute map (HB 4 engrossed) affects 12 congressional districts, specifically CDs 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 22, 29, 36 and 38, according to remarks by Senator King.
- King said HB 4 moves all of Navarro County into CD 6 (it had been split, partially in CD 17) and moves Liberty County into CD 9 (previously in CD 36). He also said the bill moves portions of Fort Bliss into CD 16 to address concerns raised by El Paso area witnesses.
- King said nine of the 12 affected districts are Republican-performing districts relative to SB 4 and that six of those saw improved Republican performance under the House substitute; he said three Republican districts (CDs 6, 14 and 36) slightly decreased Republican performance but “remained 60% plus Trump 2024 districts.” He stated both SB 4 and HB 4 have five districts that lean Republican.
Committee debate and objections
- Several senators objected to taking no new public testimony on the House substitute. Senator Miles said the committee was “shutting out even more constituents” when changes are made in the House without an additional hearing in the Senate. Senator Creighton and others defended the practice as standard when a companion bill catches up, and said the parliamentarian had affirmed it.
- Senator Alvarado said the new CD 9 split the East End community and paired it with Liberty County, calling the new configuration noncompact and expressing frustration that constituents had no chance to testify on the change. Alvarado said, “It seems like… the goal was to create more opportunity for Republican wins in these districts.”
- Senator Miles and Senator Hinojosa raised racial-impact concerns using Texas Legislative Council figures cited in the committee. According to remarks in the hearing, the citizen voting-age population (CVAP) for CD 9 was described as dropping from about 38.6% Black to 10.2% Black under the new configuration — a change senators described as a 28.4 percentage-point decline. Miles called the maps “racist rig districting” in his remarks and announced he would vote no on the committee substitute.
- Senator Hinojosa detailed splits in Hidalgo County and McAllen-area communities, saying the substitute split city and school-district boundaries and separated university and hospital assets from the city; he argued those splits undermine “communities of interest.” King responded that communities of interest can include transportation, water basins and economic regions, not only city or county boundaries.
Legal and procedural context cited
- Senator King and others said the map was based on 2020 redistricting data and that counsel had “scrubbed” HB 4 and found it complies with applicable law, including the Voting Rights Act. King said he had not consulted with the Justice Department or White House on the map.
- Committee members noted prior hearings: King said the committee had heard testimony from more than 200 people across hearings this special session and the prior special session, and that the committee previously favorably reported SB 4 by a 6–3 vote after hearing from 42 witnesses on Aug. 17.
Vote and formal action
- Senator Parker moved that House Bill 4 be reported favorably to the full Senate with the recommendation that it pass and be ordered not printed. The committee recorded five ayes and three nays; the clerk reported one absence. The chair announced, “There being 5 ayes, 3 nays, and 1 absent, House Bill 4 will be reported to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation.”
What happens next
- With the committee’s favorable report, HB 4 (engrossed) advances to the full Senate for further consideration. Committee members who voiced objections signaled continued opposition and emphasized procedural and racial-impact concerns, and several said they will continue to raise those issues in subsequent proceedings.
Ending
- The committee concluded by sending the bill to the full Senate and adjourning the hearing subject to the call of the chair.
