Tarrant County hearing draws packed crowd as residents call proposed redistricting a racial gerrymander

Tarrant County residents filled a public hearing to oppose five proposed precinct maps that would redraw the county commissioners’ boundaries, with Precinct 1 Commissioner Roderick Miles Jr. and dozens of residents saying the process is opaque and aimed at diluting minority voting strength.

“This redistricting process is not representative of who Tarrant County is. It's not fair and it's not transparent, and it is certainly not rooted in any genuine desire to serve the people,” said Commissioner Roderick Miles Jr., Tarrant County Commissioner, Precinct 1.

The hearing centered on five map options publicly posted on the county website and on whether the mid‑decade change is justified. Speakers raised three recurring concerns: that the maps were drawn to advantage particular political interests, that the process lacked sufficient public data and time for review, and that the changes would shift offices, maintenance facilities and county services across precinct lines.

Miles said three of the five proposed maps remove Lake Como from Precinct 1 and would move large stretches of county roads, a maintenance facility and one of his constituency offices into the newly drawn Precinct 2. He warned those shifts would carry hidden costs for staff, facility access and daily operations and said residents should examine the county's online redistricting materials. “If you've historically been represented by Precinct 1, you might want to go check your address because you may change and now be represented by 2,” Miles said.

Devin Allen, former Tarrant County commissioner, disputed justifications for an immediate redraw. Allen said the court conducted a public redistricting process in 2021, that the county retained the Austin firm Bickerstaff Heath then, and that the current maps were adopted after analysis of 2020 Census data. “This is a flat‑out lie and a dishonest excuse to hide [the] plan to undermine the voting strength of minorities,” Allen said in response to claims a decade had passed without redistricting.

Many residents portrayed the new maps as a partisan maneuver. Daryl Davis, president of the Crowley ISD Board of Trustees, said the proposed maps “surgically pluck” communities of color out of one district and pack them into another, weakening their electoral influence. “Redistricting at this time will do irreparable damage to our communities,” he said.

Speakers pointed to specific demographic shifts during public comment. Chris Tackett, a resident who cited 2020 Census figures, said the county is majority Black, Brown and Asian at about 57 percent and argued the maps increase the minority share of Precinct 1 while reducing it in Precinct 2. Tackett testified that the proposed plans average an increase of roughly 12 percentage points for Precinct 1 and a decrease of about 11.5 points for Precinct 2 across the five options, and described that pattern as deliberate “packing” and “cracking.”

Multiple speakers also criticized the county's use of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, commonly known as PILF, to provide redistricting work and questioned who actually drew the maps. Several commenters said PILF had limited public engagement and that an outside group, identified by speakers as the National Republican Redistricting Trust, produced the draft maps after conversations with some commissioners. A PILF representative attended the meeting; some speakers noted he remained near the doorway rather than joining the presenters at the front.

Fiscal and legal concerns were raised repeatedly. Commenters said the county judge estimated an initial redistricting cost of $30,000 and warned that litigation could drive further expenses. Rebecca Maples, a Precinct 4 resident, urged officials to consider the potential legal cost, referencing PILF’s litigation history in other states.

No formal vote or motion was taken at the hearing. Instead, speakers were instructed on how to submit written comments and sign up for public comment at upcoming Commissioners Court meetings. Pamela Young, a community organizer, urged attendees to turn testimony into on‑record comments at the court and to appear at scheduled meetings: “Show up to the May 20 Commissioners Court meeting,” she said, and prepare for a vote she said would take place on June 3.

County officials and members of the public offered competing accounts of prior redistricting work in 2021; some speakers pointed to public records and county statements confirming a 2021 review of census data, while opponents of the current proposal argued the new plans are unnecessary and rushed. Residents asked the court for clear criteria, the underlying demographic data used to draw the five options, and more time and software access to craft and test alternative maps.

Speakers on both sides said they planned further action: opponents promised to challenge maps in court and mobilize voters, while supporters of redistricting said maps are needed to reflect population change. Commissioners Court remains the locus for next steps; several public commenters asked for transparent criteria and for commissioners to demonstrate how proposed lines protect communities of interest and comply with federal law.

A broad coalition of residents, faith leaders, former officials and civic groups used the hearing to press one message: do not change precinct lines without full transparency, data release and adequate time for public review. “We will not be erased,” one speaker said, echoing repeated warnings that the proposed maps would disenfranchise minority voters if adopted without changes.