Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Paso council urges state to keep Fort Bliss and airport in Congressional District 16
Summary
In a special meeting Aug. 5 the El Paso City Council unanimously passed a resolution asking the Texas Legislature to keep Fort Bliss and El Paso International Airport inside Congressional District 16, citing economic ties and federal funding implications.
The El Paso City Council on Aug. 5 passed a unanimous resolution urging the Texas Legislature to keep Fort Bliss and the El Paso International Airport inside the city’s U.S. Congressional District 16.
“Fort Bliss is El Paso, and El Paso is Fort Bliss,” Representative Acevedo said as he introduced the resolution during a special meeting called to discuss proposed redistricting maps announced in Austin. The council’s action came after testimony and discussion about a proposed senate map that would shift the airport and Fort Bliss into a district based in San Antonio.
The resolution argued that both installations are key economic drivers for the region. The text read in council cited that the airport recently secured a $150 million distribution center projected to bring about 950 jobs and generate roughly $48 million in revenue for the airport over 50 years; it also cited figures presented by staff that Foreign Trade Zone 68 handled multibillion‑dollar trade flows in 2024. The resolution also cites Fort Bliss’s stated economic impact—about $4 billion and tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in the region.
Advocates for the resolution said moving either asset into an out‑of‑town district would weaken local representation on issues tied to the airport’s growth and Fort Bliss’s federal relationships. “Drawing a district boundary that excludes the El Paso International Airport and Fort Bliss from being represented by a congressional representative who is locally based … removes the close working relationship that has proven vital for federal funding,” the resolution said.
Council members from across the dais underscored that the change would place El Paso‑based facilities under a representative who would be more than 500 miles away, out of regular contact with local leaders and agencies. Representative Canales described the move as politically motivated and said it was intended to influence control in Austin.
The motion to approve was made by Representative Acevedo and seconded by Representative Maldonado Rocha; the council voted unanimously to adopt the resolution. Mayor Renard Johnson and the council asked staff and their state delegation to press the case in Austin and to coordinate with El Paso County, which passed a similar resolution the previous day.
Ending note: The council’s resolution is a formal expression of the city’s stance ahead of pending state action on maps. The language and financial figures cited in the resolution will be part of the council’s outreach to state lawmakers and the public in the coming days.
