The Texas House voted 88-52 to pass House Bill 4, a mid-decade congressional redistricting plan, after an extended, often contentious floor debate in which lawmakers and witnesses traded legal arguments and sharply divergent claims about the maps effects.

The bills author, Representative Hunter, urged the House to approve the plan, saying it follows recent case law and uses partisan political performance as a lawful factor. "The underlying goal of this plan is straightforward: improve Republican political performance," Hunter said while explaining the proposal and the sources counsel relied on.

Opponents argued the same features supporters say are lawful amount to a deliberate dilution of minority voting strength. Representative Turner, who offered an amendment to strike the bills enacting clause, called HB 4 "a radical, racially discriminatory, mid-decade redistricting plan" and urged members to kill the measure. Other Democrats warned the plan would crack and pack Black and Latino communities across Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and the Rio Grande Valley and predicted prompt federal litigation.

Several members cited recent court decisions that the bills supporters also invoked. Hunter and others referenced U.S. Supreme Court guidance that courts will not determine partisan intent (Rucho v. Common Cause) and a Fifth Circuit decision (Pettaway v. Galveston County) affecting coalition-district claims; opponents said the Voting Rights Act (section 2) and ongoing litigation over the 2021 maps made mid-decade changes risky. The Department of Justices June letter to the governor was discussed repeatedly by both sides as background to the session.

Committee process and public input were frequent points of dispute. Supporters said multiple public hearings were held and counsel analyzed legal and demographic questions; critics said the plans final form was not available to the public during field hearings, that many hearings allowed only a short window for oral testimony (and relied on written submissions), and that substantial changes between the first and second special sessions were made while many members and members of the public were absent. Members also objected to how the plans were developed, asking who on the map-drawing team directed line changes; Hunter replied that he worked with outside counsel and that the law firm produced the draft maps.

Speakers on both sides cited specific district changes discussed on the floor. The bills proponents highlighted that the proposed plan includes new majority-minority citizen voting-age population (CVAP) districts in some areas and said the proposal meets population and legal requirements. Opponents pointed to named examples and numbers raised during debate: Representative Turner and others cited changes to Harris County and Houston districts, saying Congressional District 29s Hispanic CVAP falls from figures cited under the 2021 map to roughly the low 40s under the new plan, while other districts were drawn to create Hispanic CVAP figures such as 50.15% for a reconfigured CD 9 and 50.71% black CVAP for a reconfigured CD 18 (figures were discussed repeatedly on the floor by the bills author and questioners). The bill author described 5 new districts of interest and said counsel advised the plans legality.

Lawmakers conducted recorded votes on numerous floor amendments. Representative Turners motion to strike the bills enacting clause (which would have killed HB 4) was defeated after a motion to table prevailed; multiple amendments seeking to delay the maps effect until further court review or to require additional studies of citizen voting-age population were likewise rejected on recorded votes during prolonged amendment debate. Several members urged using a commission or additional CVAP study before enacting a mid-decade plan; those procedural and substantive proposals were rejected on the floor.

After final votes on amendments and two rounds of extended debate the House advanced the measure to engrossment and then voted for final passage. The chair earlier had said the "call of the House" would remain in force and doors would be locked until the bill passed; the call was lifted after final passage.

Opponents on the floor and in prepared remarks signaled they would pursue legal challenges; supporters argued the plan follows applicable case law and reflects political realities in Texas. The bill now proceeds to the Senate for consideration.

Ending: Whether the plan will survive judicial scrutiny remains an open question: multiple speakers on the floor said federal court review is likely, and several members referenced ongoing litigation connected to the 2021 congressional plan and DOJ communications that helped prompt the special-session focus. The new map will take immediate effect only if the Senate passes and the governor signs it; opponents said they intend to press legal challenges if it becomes law.