Tarrant County residents oppose mid‑decade redistricting, criticize consultant contract

At a public hearing in Azle, dozens of Tarrant County residents urged county leaders to halt a mid‑decade effort to redraw county commissioners' precincts, saying maps produced under a contract with the Public Interest Legal Foundation would dilute minority voting power and were undertaken without sufficient public data or local accountability.

Speakers focused on three issues: the substance of the five proposed map options, the contract the commissioners approved with the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), and the format and timing of the county's outreach. "The heart of these proposed maps is a racially based gerrymander in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," Julie Griffin said, summarizing the legal objections voiced by several attendees.

Tom Stallings, a Tarrant County staff member working with Precinct 4, opened the meeting by explaining the county's April 2 contract with the Public Interest Legal Foundation and the mechanics of the hearing, including maps and a QR code for online materials. Stallings said public comments would be recorded and that written comments could be submitted at the back table. Several speakers said they received little or no informational data explaining why the maps had been drawn or how the firm prepared its options.

Many residents argued that the five option maps move large numbers of Black, Hispanic and Asian voters out of Precinct 2 and into Precinct 1, a pattern several speakers described as "packing" and "cracking" communities. "They are costing taxpayer funds ' so much money," Perla Vujourquez said of the consultant's statewide activities, adding, "They already wasted $30,000 of our taxpayer funds." Julie Griffin cited demographic figures from the U.S. Census American Community Survey to show how the options change voting‑age racial percentages among precincts.

Other attendees criticized the process and logistics: several speakers said key officials and the consultant were not present to answer questions, and multiple commenters objected to the hearing location and short notice. "If you don't provide the data, the public is left wondering why, and what are you trying to hide?" Nan Terry said. Multiple speakers asked why the county moved forward before the 2030 census and whether the demonstrated population changes justified a mid‑decade redrawing.

A number of commenters said they saw the changes as both political and racial in intent. Byron Griffith, identifying himself with the Broadway Baptist Church Justice Committee, said demographic material posted by private citizens shows a racial intent: "This is a disgrace to Tarrant County," he said. Others told similar stories about expected litigation and the long‑term effects of altering community boundaries for upcoming 2026 elections.

Speakers offered different remedies: many urged the court to stop the current process and wait until after the 2030 census; others asked the court to provide detailed demographic and authorship data for each map option, and some asked commissioners to return the consultant's fee. Several people emphasized that public officials should have been present to hear and answer questions in person.

The county permitted each speaker three minutes and took written comments for the official record; Stallings said additional public comment opportunities would be available at future commissioners' court meetings. The hearing concluded after the scheduled speakers finished; no formal action was taken at the Azle hearing itself.