Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Transparency and minority‑impact amendments fail to clear supermajority during redistricting debate
Summary
Multiple motions to consider amendments requiring disclosure of map data, consultant disclosures, and minority‑impact findings were repeatedly voted down for lack of the 0.667 threshold; proponents said the public was denied basic information needed to assess proposed maps.
Several amendments aimed at increasing transparency or requiring minority‑impact reports were proposed and repeatedly failed to reach the two‑thirds threshold required for consideration.
Representative Johnson framed the package as accountability measures: "It requires public disclosure of outside consultants or contractors involved in congressional map drawing. The public deserves to know who helped draw the maps." She moved several related amendments — to require shape files, demographic data, written findings, and minority‑impact reporting before passage — but floor votes to consider those amendments failed under Rule 60(b)/6(b) repeatedly.
Members sponsoring amendments argued the rushed process and late amendment filings disadvantaged the minority of members trying to analyze and respond to proposed maps. Representative Jones described last‑minute amendment handling as "a form of Jim Crow terror" and said clerks and procedure left minority members without time to deliberate. Floor clerks recorded that most amendment consideration motions did not reach the 0.667 vote threshold, producing a string of failed considerations.
Because the motions to consider substantive transparency measures failed at the procedural stage, none of those transparency provisions were adopted into the redistricting bills on the floor.
