FIFTH DAY --- WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2025

The house met at 5:26 p.m. and was called to order by the speaker.

The roll of the house was called and a quorum was announced present (Record 27).

Present — Mr. Speaker(C); Alders; Allen; Anchía; Ashby; Barry; Bell, C.; Bell, K.; Bernal; Bhojani; Bonnen; Bowers; Bryant; Buckley; Bucy; Bumgarner; Button; Cain; Canales; Capriglione; Cole; Collier; Cook; Cortez; Craddick; Cunningham; Curry; Darby; Davis, Y.; Dean; DeAyala; Dorazio; Dutton; Dyson; Fairly; Flores; Frank; Gámez; Garcia, L.; Garcia Hernandez; Gates; Gerdes; Geren; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Guerra; Guillen; Harless; Harris; Harris Davila; Harrison; Hayes; Hefner; Hernandez; Hickland; Hinojosa; Holt; Hopper; Howard; Hull; Hunter; Isaac; Johnson; Jones, V.; Kerwin; King; Kitzman; LaHood; Lalani; Lambert; Landgraf; Leach; Leo Wilson; Little; Longoria; Lopez, J.; Lopez, R.; Louderback; Lowe; Lozano; Lujan; Luther; Manuel; Martinez; Martinez Fischer; McLaughlin; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Meza; Money; Moody; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Morgan; Muñoz; Noble; Olcott; Oliverson; Ordaz; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Phelan; Pierson; Plesa; Raymond; Reynolds; Richardson; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Slawson; Smithee; Spiller; Swanson; Talarico; Tepper; Thompson; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; Turner; VanDeaver; Vasut; Villalobos; Virdell; Walle; Wharton; Wilson; Wu; Zwiener.

Absent — Campos; Davis, A.; Garcia, J.; Jones, J.; Morales, C.; Rodríguez Ramos; Simmons; Vo; Ward Johnson.

The following committee meeting was announced:

Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select, upon final recess or during bill referral, if permission is granted, today, 1W.14, for a formal meeting, to consider pending, referred, and committee business.

Representative Hunter offered the following motion in writing:

Mr. Speaker:

I move to direct the chief clerk, when engrossing HB 4, to incorporate into Article II of the bill the text of the census geography for each district that describes the plan as finally passed by the house.

Hunter

The motion in writing was read and prevailed by (Record 28): 89 Yeas, 49 Nays, 1 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Alders; Allen; Ashby; Barry; Bell, C.; Bell, K.; Bonnen; Buckley; Bumgarner; Button; Cain; Capriglione; Cook; Craddick; Cunningham; Curry; Darby; Dean; DeAyala; Dorazio; Dutton; Dyson; Fairly; Frank; Gates; Gerdes; Geren; Gervin-Hawkins; Guillen; Harless; Harris; Harris Davila; Harrison; Hefner; Hickland; Holt; Hopper; Hull; Hunter; Isaac; Kerwin; King; Kitzman; LaHood; Lambert; Landgraf; Leach; Leo Wilson; Little; Lopez, J.; Louderback; Lowe; Lozano; Lujan; Luther; McLaughlin; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Money; Morgan; Noble; Olcott; Oliverson; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Phelan; Pierson; Richardson; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Slawson; Smithee; Spiller; Swanson; Tepper; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; VanDeaver; Vasut; Villalobos; Virdell; Wharton; Wilson.

Nays — Anchía; Bernal; Bhojani; Bowers; Bryant; Bucy; Canales; Cole; Collier; Cortez; Davis, Y.; Flores; Gámez; Garcia, L.; Garcia Hernandez; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Guerra; Hernandez; Hinojosa; Howard; Johnson; Jones, V.; Lalani; Longoria; Lopez, R.; Manuel; Martinez; Martinez Fischer; Meza; Moody; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Muñoz; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Plesa; Raymond; Reynolds; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Talarico; Thompson; Turner; Walle; Wu; Zwiener.

Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker(C).

Absent — Campos; Davis, A.; Garcia, J.; Hayes; Jones, J.; Morales, C.; Ordaz; Rodríguez Ramos; Simmons; Vo; Ward Johnson.

When Record No. 28 was taken, I was shown voting yes. I intended to vote no.

Allen

When Record No. 28 was taken, I was shown voting yes. I intended to vote no.

Gervin-Hawkins

The following bills were laid before the house and read third time:

HB 4, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to the composition of the districts for the election of members of the United States House of Representatives from the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Members, again, we are now on third reading of HB 4, and I'll take questions.

REPRESENTATIVE ROSE: Chairman Hunter, I just want to talk to you a little bit about coalition districts. Which districts in the 2021 map were coalition districts?

HUNTER: I can't recall.

ROSE: Well, do you understand what coalition districts are?

HUNTER: Well, if you'll go to Petteway—which we discussed on second reading about coalition districts—it will give you coalition districts as well as crossover districts. Coalition districts, as you're aware, are when, let's say, two minority groups are able to combine together. What this says is you can have a coalition district, but you cannot use it to violate Section 2.

ROSE: So it's your view that coalition districts are illegal?

HUNTER: Well, I don't know if I can say that they're legal.

ROSE: I said illegal.

HUNTER: They are a term that was used prior to 2024. With the Petteway decision, I'm not sure exactly how they'd be legally categorized, but the terminology is still used.

ROSE: So which coalition districts did you dismantle in the map that you're passing?

HUNTER: I didn't go at coalition districts. I had the lawyers come up with five seats and enhance the Republican performance. And that's what we did. I didn't go with a coalition. I was looking at voter—basically citizen voting and voter age population.

ROSE: So while you were doing that, did it leave any coalition districts in the map from 2021?

HUNTER: That, I don't know. I don't know.

REPRESENTATIVE ROSENTHAL: Why was no public testimony allowed for this committee substitute, Plan C2333?

HUNTER: I don't know because I'm not the chairman or vice-chairman.

ROSENTHAL: Can you explain how the public input that was collected at the field hearings is reflected in this map that we have here today?

HUNTER: Yes. There was testimony on Austin to San Antonio. And there was discussion about how long it went in and why there wasn't more in one area or not. That's one of the areas that we've heard. We've also heard at the several public hearings—so everybody knows––there's a difference between "compact," "packed," and "cracked." In those hearings, there was a lot of discussion of folks talking about, "It's better to be compact in the district." Those variables were included, and I gave that information to the lawyers from the hearing.

ROSENTHAL: Can you explain why a map proposal was not made available to the public at the field hearings—the three field hearings we had?

HUNTER: No, I don't.

ROSENTHAL: It was made clear by both the house and senate chairs that the map proposal was drawn by outside consultants through the Butler Snow law firm. Why wasn't the map available for the public to view and comment on at that time?

HUNTER: First, just to clarify how you said that—Butler Snow, as we've talked about today, is the law firm. Whether the individual lawyers had consultants, I do not know that. Why wasn't it produced until after the Arlington hearing—is that what you're asking?

ROSENTHAL: I'm asking why it was not produced until after all of the public hearings.

HUNTER: Was Arlington the last public hearing?

ROSENTHAL: Austin, Houston, Arlington—yes.

HUNTER: That, I don't know. I was not asked to be the author of the bill until Tuesday after the Arlington hearing.

ROSENTHAL: I see, thank you. Why was public testimony limited to only five hours in each of the field hearings?

HUNTER: I do not know because I'm not the head of that committee.

ROSENTHAL: Okay, so at the limit of possibility—which, of course, we can't operate by that. If you have five hours, a maximum of 150 people could speak if we were going in perfect order with no breaks, right? If each one had two minutes?

HUNTER: I'll rely on your math, but they also had a portal. They could also bring in written testimony. I believe the chairman set up a system where people could provide written information. In fact, many of us got written information, so it wasn't just limited to oral testimony. Plus, you did have—I think Zoom was set up at one of them. But you had participating, and then you could then turn in writing.

ROSENTHAL: But you would agree—the math says if you had five hours for a public testimony for people to actually speak, the maximum number would've been 150 at each hearing?

HUNTER: I said I'm relying on your math as an engineer.

ROSENTHAL: Very good. So in the last hearing—where we actually had a map to look at—10 hours. That would've been the maximum of 300 people if you accept the math.

HUNTER: I will rely on you as a house member if you've done the math.

ROSENTHAL: Do you know how many witnesses registered for the bill's companion in Houston?

HUNTER: At the Houston hearing?

ROSENTHAL: Sorry—in the house hearing. When we had the bill in front of us at the house, do you know how many people registered?

HUNTER: I do not.

ROSENTHAL: There were around 500. Do you know how many people were registered against the filed map?

HUNTER: I don't.

ROSENTHAL: It was 473. Do you know how many were in favor?

HUNTER: I don't.

ROSENTHAL: Three. It seems that the vast majority of Texans are not in favor of this redistricting. Can you remind us of why we're here if it's not to serve the people of Texas?

HUNTER: I disagree with you. We had hearings. You didn't mention what was brought up earlier today. I believe your party had field officers—at least in print—and robos getting people to the hearing. Now, that sounds like people are driving people to the hearing to oppose. That was in print. Two—even if they did, I think it is constructive to have hearings to hear folks. I also think it's constructive when members are present to meet with us. And I also think it's constructive that the more we're together as a body, like you just said, we can get things done very, very well. So I believe that we did have the current and good operation, and I don't know why the numbers were the way they were, but I'm not surprised. I've been to many hearings where the opposition comes in, not necessarily the support—lots of that. That's nothing unusual to me.

ROSENTHAL: A few proponents of this map have cited population increases as a reason to redistrict. Can you remind us of what data was used to redraw the map? Was it anything to do with population increases?

HUNTER: As I stated when we were voting on the bill earlier, all the data, all the information that was in the creation of the details, was done by counsel or whoever they involved. Todd Hunter does not have personal knowledge of that but relied on counsel.

ROSENTHAL: So it had nothing to do with any new official census data, right?

HUNTER: That, I don't know. I don't know if there's an estimated census out there. I know there's a lot of trend data out there. I, personally, do not know the specific data.

ROSENTHAL: Got it. Do you think it's fair to voters to have their congressional districts constantly changed?

HUNTER: Well, I'm not sure. First of all, there's nothing that prevents redistricting to be continuing.

ROSENTHAL: That's true. In the theoretical limit, you could redraw the districts in front of every single election if we go down this path. Is that true, theoretically?

HUNTER: Theoretically. I doubt it, because I don't think, practically, you could. But I do believe that there's nothing that bars redistricting to be taken up at different times. We're not held to a 10-year standard. That's incorrect. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you're not able to do it.

ROSENTHAL: So I'll point out—do you realize that this whole process has taken you all less than 30 days? You can admit to the possibility that this could be done in front of every single election if you think there's a possibility you'll lose?

HUNTER: You know, what happens happens, my vice-chairman. I just don't know.

REPRESENTATIVE BERNAL: I'm just going to try to go through these quickly for time. I want to talk about CD 35. What is the specific purpose of creating CD 35 with a Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population of 51.6 percent?

HUNTER: So your question is, why was it created?

BERNAL: Right—with what I will call a razor-thin margin. What is the purpose?

HUNTER: I don't know what the purpose is on the margin, but this was under the Supreme Court—one of the districts that could be Republican, so they used partisanship in it.

BERNAL: Do you know if CD 35, with a Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population of 51.5 percent, was created to comply with the Voting Rights Act?

HUNTER: All right, you're talking about 35?

BERNAL: Yes.

HUNTER: So everybody knows: Hispanic CVAP in 2021 was 45.46 percent. In this bill, it is 51.57. We increased it—5.71 change. And I don't know if that was the counsel's goals, but I'm sure they use all this information to create it.

BERNAL: To that point, I just need to ask—do you know the purpose of the geographic changes to CD 35? It was moved out of Travis, out of I-35, and out of Kyle and Buda.

HUNTER: This is one of the ones where the vice-chairman just asked. We heard testimony in the hearings about Austin to San Antonio. This was one of the ones that was suggested we may want to take a look at—this area—because it goes all the way down. I'm sure that was one of the factors that was taken into 35. It's now a new Hispanic CVAP majority district. And Republican performance does increase, absolutely.

BERNAL: Do you know whether or not, when approaching—let's call it the previous version prior to this map—the previous version of CD 35—when I say previous, I mean the one that is now before these maps—might be implemented? I certainly hope not, but do you know if that district was required or protected by the Voting Rights Act?

HUNTER: Do I know—

BERNAL: Whether the current configuration of CD 35—

HUNTER: I understand. The law changed since 2021. That's what we've been saying throughout the day. So the law has changed, and we're able to use different elements and information than we've had in the past. In 2021—I cannot recall here exactly how some of these were created. The problem that I have with your question is your side filed a lawsuit that is pending in El Paso. So I don't know what's being determined there.

BERNAL: Understood. You've mentioned some of the conversations you had in committee. You mentioned that the law has changed since 2021. Are you saying that the current version of CD 35 is a replacement for the previous version? And when I say "current," I'm saying: Are you saying the proposed version of CD 35 is a replacement for the CD 35 that we have now?

HUNTER: I don't know about the word "replacement," but I've been very up front—this is an absolutely brand-new created, Republican partisan-supported performing district—9, 28, 34, 35.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: As I understand it, the changes in this bill come about as a result of a law change in 2021?

HUNTER: I'm not sure your question. In 2021, we had redistricting; it is challenged in federal court. In 2025, we are presenting a new congressional plan that allows five additional Republican-performing partisan seats.

DUTTON: But that's the result you said—I thought you spoke of a law change in 2021.

HUNTER: No, I said one of the elements that is being looked at since 2021 were court cases.

DUTTON: And that is—sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off—but that results in this bill, essentially?

HUNTER: I'm not sure if that's what results in the bill, but I will say that's an element of this bill.

DUTTON: So what else happened between the last redistricting and this bill that causes you comfort to make these changes?

HUNTER: Well, number one, in 2024, the Petteway case was decided.

DUTTON: Okay, a year ago.

HUNTER: In there, they said Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not authorize separately protected minority groups to aggregate their populations for purposes of a vote dilution claim, and it does not require political subdivisions to draw precinct lines for these particular groups. So this changed a lot of the law that happened in 2021. Then the Rucho case—which was before 2021—2019—has been reviewed and studied since that time. Then it, along with Petteway for partisan redistricting, has become very strong on the law circuits.

DUTTON: Well, at least it's changed the law. You're saying "strong," but it essentially changed the law in regard to that.

HUNTER: I agree.

DUTTON: You know, I find that interesting. Certainly, I want to compliment you. I wish you all had been around for quite some time because—are you aware of Brown v. Board of Education?

HUNTER: I am aware of it.

DUTTON: And you know it was a 1954 case, right?

HUNTER: It's a long time ago case, yes.

DUTTON: Right. I was in elementary school when that came down. Do you know when they finally implemented it? I was in college. So if they could've done it with the same speed that you all are doing this, we might be having a different conversation right now. I just want to thank you for being able to change the whole concept of "all deliberate speed."

REPRESENTATIVE ZWIENER: Representative Hunter, I'd like to know what your constituents in Nueces County have in common with mine in Buda and Kyle.

HUNTER: Because you're inaccurate—I've heard that all day about Port Aransas. Port Aransas is about 15—

(Landgraf in the chair)

Pursuant to Rule 5, Section 28, of the House Rules, Representative Zwiener requested an extension of speaking time on HB 4.

The request was not granted by (Record 29): 52 Yeas, 84 Nays, 2 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Allen; Anchía; Bernal; Bhojani; Bowers; Bucy; Canales; Cole; Collier; Cortez; Davis, Y.; Dutton; Flores; Gámez; Garcia, L.; Garcia Hernandez; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Guerra; Hernandez; Hinojosa; Howard; Johnson; Jones, V.; Lalani; Longoria; Lopez, R.; Manuel; Martinez; Martinez Fischer; Meza; Moody; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Muñoz; Ordaz; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Plesa; Raymond; Reynolds; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Talarico; Thompson; Turner; Walle; Wu; Zwiener.

Nays — Alders; Ashby; Barry; Bell, C.; Bell, K.; Bonnen; Buckley; Bumgarner; Button; Cain; Capriglione; Cook; Craddick; Cunningham; Curry; Darby; Dean; DeAyala; Dorazio; Dyson; Frank; Gates; Gerdes; Guillen; Harless; Harris; Harris Davila; Harrison; Hayes; Hefner; Hickland; Holt; Hopper; Hull; Hunter; Isaac; Kerwin; King; Kitzman; LaHood; Lambert; Leach; Leo Wilson; Little; Lopez, J.; Louderback; Lowe; Lozano; Lujan; Luther; McLaughlin; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Money; Morgan; Noble; Olcott; Oliverson; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Phelan; Pierson; Richardson; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Slawson; Smithee; Spiller; Swanson; Tepper; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; VanDeaver; Vasut; Villalobos; Virdell; Wharton; Wilson.

Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker; Landgraf(C).

Absent — Bryant; Campos; Davis, A.; Fairly; Garcia, J.; Geren; Jones, J.; Morales, C.; Rodríguez Ramos; Simmons; Vo; Ward Johnson.

REPRESENTATIVE J. GONZÁLEZ: I rise today in fierce opposition to HB 4 and what it represents for my community and the Latino communities across Texas. This body—this legislature—spends a lot of time demonizing my people. Many of you even campaign on it. Latinos—whether they are in North or South Texas, whether they are first-generation citizens or can trace their lineage back to the founding of this state—have been attacked consistently by their government for as long as Texas has existed. And here we are being forced to sit through it once again in a manner that is not just unjust but inconsistent with our U.S. Constitution. This map doesn't just draw new lines; it draws a painful and familiar conclusion that our voices don't matter and that our communities can be sliced up, diluted, and ignored. We can be visible in the labor force and the tax rolls, but invisible when it comes to representation.

In Dallas, neighborhoods with large Latino populations—places like Oak Cliff, where I live; Bachman Lake; and parts of Pleasant Grove—are being carved apart. Precincts are being split block by block—families put into different districts and communities divided. These are not random changes. They're calculated erasures of political strength, and we see it for what it is. It hurts communities like mine, but that's nothing new, I guess, with this body. You've heard these stories before from this very mic. Mexican Americans suffered through La Matanza and La Hora de Sangre in the early 20th century, where thousands were killed in state-sanctioned lynchings. It took the courage of one man—J.T. Canales, the only Mexican American in this house at the time—to investigate, to speak truth to power, and to demand change. The violence never stopped. It just changed form. It became regulatory. It became legislative. Literacy tests, English-only ballots, and Juan Crow laws passed right in this chamber sought to suppress our voice under the guise of governance. And the legacy lives on.

In 2023, this legislature passed SB 4—the "show me your papers" bill. It encouraged racial profiling, it encouraged vigilante justice, and it stripped away local control, allowing fear to settle like a fog over our immigrant neighborhoods. And just this year, families across Texas saw ICE detain and deport people who were American citizens—again, American citizens—because of faulty records or because a brown face simply seems suspicious. The result was the same—families shattered, communities silenced, and trust destroyed. So today, when you present yet another plan to divide and weaken us through redistricting, understand this: We've seen this playbook before. Today, we endure a tax that would've felt like home in the era before the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. This state's history of racism, violence, and shameful policy is important and relevant today because these policies become cultural norms and standards when your, or my, representation is limited or erased. We are being told again that this isn't about race, that these maps are fair, and that communities like mine are not being targeted. But when supporters of this bill come to this mic, the back mic, or get on social media and say, "We aren't demonizing anyone" or "I love having Latinos in my district," I want you to remember the word spoken by their own party's chosen leader—the same man that they openly support—"I don't know if you call them 'people' in some cases. They're not people; they're poisoning the blood of our country."

Members, that's not neutrality. That's not accidental; that's a narrative. And it's the same narrative that justifies cracking up Latino neighborhoods in Dallas so that their political power won't grow. It's the same narrative that tells us our concerns don't matter, that our voices are too loud, and our representation is optional. But we aren't going anywhere. We will keep telling the truth, we will keep calling out injustice, and we will remember what you do here today, because history will remember it too. All eyes are on you. I oppose this map, I oppose this process, and I oppose what it says about the value of Latino lives in the State of Texas. I urge you to vote against this rigged map.

REPRESENTATIVE J. LOPEZ: I'll make this short and simple. I'll speak in Spanish and in English. Today, I just want to come to you as someone from the Rio Grande Valley myself, in South Texas. I am in support of this bill. I think it's good for Texas, and I think it's good for South Texas as well. Se oye hablar mucho del Río Grande en el Valle. Yo soy del Río Grande. Yo también deje el partido democrata. Esta mapa es bueno para Tejas, es bueno para el Valle, y apoyo esta mapa como Hispana.

ROSE: Members, we're about to vote on these new congressional maps, and the maps do not seek to make our districts more balanced or fair. What it does––and it's not about voters. These maps are about silencing communities. It was designated that way. These maps before us diminish the voting power of Black and brown communities, who have fought for generations for their access and that power. Our parents and grandparents sacrificed so that we could have a voice in democracy, so that our neighbors, our churches, our schools, and our businesses all could be represented in this chamber. And I know that may be foreign to you all—especially those who are talking while I'm talking, because you don't care—but there have been sacrifices made. Just because you may not have had those sacrifices and you all can't relate to them, we know that sacrifices have been made. Yet, we are here watching those voices be carved up, diluted, and diminished.

This is not about lines. This is about lives. When you take away representation, you take away agency. You strip people of their power to fight for health care in their communities, you silence their ability to demand quality education for their children, and you weaken stances to secure good jobs, fair wages, and safe neighborhoods. For generations, Black and brown people have contributed to the State of Texas. I know you all don't believe that. This building that you're sitting in—I hope you all know who built it. For generations—again—Black and brown Texans have contributed to the prosperity of this state. We pay taxes, we raise our children, we serve, we worship, and we vote.

The message of these maps is clear: Our voices are inconvenient, and our growing strength is something to be contained rather than celebrated. Let me say this plainly: Representation is power. When you deny our representation, you deny us power, you deny us dignity, and we are denied the promise of Texas. History is watching us. I hope you're proud of this part of the history that you will be known for. I will not stand by silently while the progress of generations who have struggled for it is erased with the stroke of a pen. Fair maps are not just about politics; they're about justice, they're about equity, and they are about whether Texas will be a true state that belongs to us all.

REPRESENTATIVE PIERSON: Members, first I want to thank Chairman Hunter, Chairman Vasut, and the rest of the committee for their tireless work answering the governor's call. Chairman Hunter may not have taken the personal attacks and disrespect personally, but I did. The opposition gets to stand here and grandstand and say pretty much anything that they want, and we're expected to stand here and just take it. You call my voters racist, you call my party racist, yet we're expected to follow the rules. Well, that double standard ends today.

You know, I started out 15 years ago as a concerned citizen, and I became a volunteer activist. I didn't like what I was seeing, so I got involved. The more I learned, the more I dug in, because I was determined to change the trajectory of not just our state but our country. And I would argue that I did that. From a founding member of the Tea Party movement to fighting on the front lines for President Trump in 2015, long before it was cool, I have traveled all over this country for the better part of a decade. I can tell you that more and more minority voters are voting their values, not their skin color. Many of them are moving to Texas to escape the blue states because their values have been successfully gerrymandered into suppression.

Now, I've heard the accusations that this mid-decade redistricting is going to silence voters and that it misrepresents the population of Texas, but history tells a different story. We are not the first state to do mid-decade redistricting, and we didn't invent the playbook. But who led the way? Blue states. The ones that you all fled to. The very party today crying foul and the same party that's saying that they want a fair fight is the party that's pushing boys into girls' sports. They say we're diluting the minority districts; they call us racist, but the facts don't match your rhetoric. Texas currently has zero Black CVAP districts, and under the new map, there are two. Now, I haven't been to third grade in a really long time, but when you go from zero to two, that's an increase—or perhaps you're using liberal logic.

I have heard repeatedly that these maps are gerrymandered, but that doesn't fit the narrative either. That's just spin. Because in many parts of the state, the map eliminates gerrymandering. They emphasize compactness, whole counties, and whole cities. Political performance isn't just legal; it is fair, and it reflects the voters of the State of Texas. The reality is the opposition is complaining that we are ungerrymandering the gerrymandering. Another complaint that I've heard is that we're silencing public input, but let me be clear: I sat through over 46 hours of public testimony. I listened, I traveled, and I heard the voices. Those voices are reflected in this map if you actually look at the map.

I understand the frustration. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they're struggling right now because the fact is President Trump won Hispanic voters in the State of Texas. I get it. You don't like that. And to address my colleague earlier who asked the chairman if he knew that Blacks fled during slavery—well, they did. They fled to Republican states. Another fact: In 2024, Democrats lost. President Trump won big. So you're upset, and I get it. You're losing at the ballot box, but you will not silence the majority in the State of Texas. You can throw your tantrums, you can leave, you can run, and you can ignore the will of the rest of the voters, but it's honestly time to pick a new narrative. The racist rhetoric is old. It is seriously stale and long overplayed. News flash: Democrats do not own minorities in Texas. The South lost. There are Black and Hispanic and Asian Republicans right here in this chamber, who were all elected—just like you.

Republicans are the majority, so it's not the people of Texas who are racist—it is you. All of these speeches on victimization and this toxic white guilt that I've had to suffer through my entire life—I'm sick of it. The people of Texas have spoken. We have the majority. President Trump flipped 11 out of 18 counties on the Texas-Mexico border. The people of Texas are sick of the rhetoric as well. He doubled his support from 2020, so political performance is the driver. You lost; get over it. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of HB 4. Removing gerrymandering is the right thing to do. Increasing minority representation is the right thing to do, and it more accurately reflects the values of Texans. This is long overdue, and we owe it to the people of Texas.

(Speaker in the chair)

REPRESENTATIVE V. JONES: Members, I stand in opposition of HB 4. I have written remarks, but these remarks come straight from my heart. The question I want to ask as we prepare for a final vote on this bill is: Is it worth it? Is it worth it to, once again, ignore the will of countless Texans saying, "No, we don't want this. Let's focus on food relief, let's increase access to health care, and let's provide funding for our public schools". There are still bodies being recovered from the flooding, but we are here focusing on maps––not flood relief, not returning the bodies to loved ones, but racist maps, not Texans. During the First Called Session, we had two weeks to focus on providing flood relief, in which we had no bills on the floor regarding this topic. Not until Democrats broke quorum did a bill magically pop up, as the right appealed to its base that Democrats were not doing their job. Even after leaving, my colleagues on the right had the executive power to provide funding for that flood relief at any time. All it would have taken was a signature by the governor.

During the quorum break, I watched my colleagues. I watched you call us liars and instruct your people to go get us. The funny thing is that they found us before the FBI and the state troopers that the speaker claimed were doing everything they could to find us. Some of my colleagues even made it a little easier with their posting. Republicans in this chamber—and in the shadows of social media—threatened us, shared our home addresses, and even threatened our lives with bomb threats. I watched you all, and let me tell you: My people—Black people—fought too hard for this right to vote. If you know me, you know I do not play political games with y'all in this body because I know the work we do on this floor speaks life and death into communities across this state. I leave the political games to those of you who are setting up your campaigns to run for these new seats—another power grab on the backs of Black representation. People who were put under surveillance by the FBI, who had militias formed against them by their elected leadership, who had to work in a system that changed the rules when they didn't get their way or listen to the will of the people—doesn't that sound familiar today?

I'm not going to make this speech super long because most of the members have already turned their ears off to Texans. I will say this: Remember this day, Texas. Remember the meetings you had with members. When they could say nothing but "I'm sorry" behind closed doors but be complicit in allowing a dictator to take over our nation. That's not the United States, and that sure as hell is not Texas. To close, I will ask this: Mr. Speaker, members, I hope you are proud of your policies and how they serve Texans. Is it worth it? You are the ones who have to sleep at night.

REPRESENTATIVE HICKLAND: Mr. Speaker, members, I am in favor of this bill. All day we've heard arguments against this bill, and at the core, those arguments come down to two things: race and a person. At every single public hearing, members of Congress have stood up only to insult President Trump and also to insult those who support him. But here's the reality—242 of Texas' 254 counties decisively voted to elect him. That fact alone shows the will of Texans, yet the other side keeps saying what we're doing here is racist. But notice this—they are the ones who keep bring race into the conversation over and over again. It's been their argument at all of our hearings and on the floor today. In doing so, they are making an insulting assumption that someone's political beliefs—that someone's vote—can be predicted simply by the color of their skin. But let's be clear: It's simply not accurate to assume that minorities will always vote one way. We don't have to look any further than the most recent election for proof. In the State of Texas, 55 percent of Hispanics voted for our current president. Fifty-five percent of Asian Americans did the same. And now we're seeing a noticeable shift among African American voters toward Republicans.

When we look at the details of the maps and these district lines, they reflect the political performance of those areas. Irregular shapes are now more compact, lines are drawn on natural boundaries, counties are made whole, cities are restored. It's more than a person; it's policies. We all campaigned and knocked on doors. We all heard concerns regarding the border, the economy, law and order, fostering safe communities, and eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse in our government. These are the issues that have been championed by President Trump and the policies overwhelmingly supported by Texans. Texans deserve representation that reflects our values. That is exactly what this bill seeks to accomplish. In this body, we have seen some hard-fought wins––ensuring that only citizens vote, empowering parents to choose their children's education, protecting children from obscenity, and defining a woman. Why was that hard? We are proud Texans. We are proud Americans. Let the people choose their elected officials. They did, and this effort is in response to that. Vote for this bill.

HB 4 was passed by (Record 30): 88 Yeas, 52 Nays, 0 Present, not voting.

Yeas — Mr. Speaker(C); Alders; Ashby; Barry; Bell, C.; Bell, K.; Bonnen; Buckley; Bumgarner; Button; Cain; Capriglione; Cook; Craddick; Cunningham; Curry; Darby; Dean; DeAyala; Dorazio; Dyson; Fairly; Frank; Gates; Gerdes; Geren; Guillen; Harless; Harris; Harris Davila; Harrison; Hayes; Hefner; Hickland; Holt; Hopper; Hull; Hunter; Isaac; Kerwin; King; Kitzman; LaHood; Lambert; Landgraf; Leach; Leo Wilson; Little; Lopez, J.; Louderback; Lowe; Lozano; Lujan; Luther; McLaughlin; McQueeney; Metcalf; Meyer; Money; Morgan; Noble; Olcott; Oliverson; Orr; Patterson; Paul; Phelan; Pierson; Richardson; Schatzline; Schofield; Schoolcraft; Shaheen; Shofner; Slawson; Smithee; Spiller; Swanson; Tepper; Tinderholt; Toth; Troxclair; VanDeaver; Vasut; Villalobos; Virdell; Wharton; Wilson.

Nays — Allen; Anchía; Bernal; Bowers; Bryant; Bucy; Canales; Cole; Collier; Cortez; Davis, Y.; Dutton; Flores; Gámez; Garcia, L.; Garcia Hernandez; Gervin-Hawkins; González, J.; González, M.; Goodwin; Guerra; Hernandez; Hinojosa; Howard; Johnson; Jones, V.; Lalani; Longoria; Lopez, R.; Manuel; Martinez; Martinez Fischer; Meza; Moody; Morales, E.; Morales Shaw; Muñoz; Ordaz; Perez, M.; Perez, V.; Plesa; Raymond; Reynolds; Romero; Rose; Rosenthal; Talarico; Thompson; Turner; Walle; Wu; Zwiener.

Absent — Bhojani; Campos; Davis, A.; Garcia, J.; Jones, J.; Morales, C.; Rodríguez Ramos; Simmons; Vo; Ward Johnson.

When Record No. 30 was taken, my vote failed to register. I would have voted no.

Bhojani

When Record No. 30 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session. I would have voted no.

C. Morales

When Record No. 30 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of the special session. I would have voted no.

Rodríguez Ramos

Representative J. Jones submitted the following reason for vote to be printed in the journal:

My House District 147, whose residents are also constituents of Texas 18, Texas 9, and Texas 29, is directly targeted by this plan. Plan C2333 cracks and packs Black and brown districts in a way that erases my constituents' ability to elect Black representation and dilutes Black and brown representation. This is a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, making it unconstitutional. My constituents have demanded that I not be present to give republican members the quorum they need in order to dismantle these rights. I am standing with them, and I will not be complicit in this injustice.

Notwithstanding my refusal to be in Austin to be complicit in this racism, my district office continues, and has always remained open, to address any needs of the constituents of House District 147. Let no one say that I abandoned my office or vacated my responsibilities. I have instead ensured that I kept myself safe, since the House has set law enforcement upon us, issued subpoenas, and authorized arrest warrants. Given the history of this country with racism, I—and my constituents—am deeply concerned for my personal safety, physical safety, and mental health.

Representative C. Morales submitted the following reason for vote to be printed in the journal:

When the record vote on HB 4 was cast, I was away from my desk in protest of this redistricting scheme and the harm the proposed map would impose. But I remained on the frontlines of the fight my constituents demanded their state representative to be engaged in. I could not let my constituents' voices fall on deaf ears. Concerned mothers from Second Ward and young students from Northline ask me the same question: What will you do to stop Trump's power grab? This fight is my answer to that question. We will all be asked for years to come what we did when the nation hinged on a fight in the Texas House? This is my stand for my district, my state, and my country.

This fight is painfully familiar. I've watched, waited, and fought for my neighbors to get fair representation, much less congressional representation that looks like us and shares our values. The fact is that each and every election from now on will be determined in advance. Because when our neighborhoods are cut apart, when our voices are diluted, it takes even more of us to simply have a chance at fair representation. That is by design, and it is devastating to see it happening in Texas.

What hurts the most is seeing our historic communities—Lindale Park, Magnolia Park, Near Northside, Park Place, the East End, and so many more—treated like pawns on a map. These are neighborhoods where families have lived and worked for generations. Places where culture, history, and resilience run deep. And yet, they are being sliced apart for political gain.

This isn't just about partisanship. It's about working families who depend on good schools, about our elders who rely on Medicaid and Medicare, about Latinos and immigrants who optimize the American Dream. It's about democracy being erased to empower the few and the rich who are willing to bow to a false king.

Republicans may have the numbers to pass these maps, but that doesn't make them just. It doesn't make them right. And it doesn't erase the truth: that Texans deserve maps that reflect who we are and honor the communities that built this state. The disappointment is heavy. The pain is real. And I know I am not alone in feeling it.

Representative Rodríguez Ramos submitted the following reason for vote to be printed in the journal:

When the record vote for HB 4 was taken, I was away from my desk in protest of this redistricting scheme and the harm the proposed map would impose. I could not, in good conscience, participate in or legitimize district maps designed to systematically deprive my constituents of the ability to choose their representation in Congress. The Republican-approved map rips my district away from neighboring communities in Dallas County. The map forces those constituents into a district spanning five counties, two and a half hours away by car, with which they share virtually nothing in common.

HB 4 was the very first bill brought to the floor this special session. At a time when families in the Hill Country are mourning loved ones and trying to rebuild after devastating floods, our Republican colleagues choose to prioritize consolidating power over ensuring that disaster victims receive relief. Representative Hunter even admitted openly on the house floor that this was about instituting a "Republican performance increase"––an increase that I believe is accomplished through a racial gerrymander that dilutes the ability of Black and brown Texans to elect someone who represents them. Racial gerrymandering is illegal under the Voting Rights Act.

These maps do nothing to improve the quality of life for families across Texas. Our constituents elected us to fight against the skyrocketing prices, cuts to health care, stagnant wages, and a worsening affordability crisis. My colleagues and I broke quorum to stand up for families like mine who are fighting every day for a better life for their children and grandkids. Texas Republicans, however, are doing the opposite. By gerrymandering our congressional seats, my colleagues across the aisle silence the very communities we were elected to serve.

Worse, the world has watched as Governor Abbott and republican officials turned the Texas Capitol into a prison and the staging ground for an authoritarian agenda. Police escorts trailed our colleagues, and people have been threatened with jail time for daring to exercise their constitutional right to protest. These intimidation tactics are from the same Jim Crow playbook our ancestors and civil rights leaders faced in the fight for the right to vote. We will not back down.

I stayed away in protest because I will never legitimize an attack on democracy this blatant. These maps are racist, illegal, and a betrayal of the values enshrined in the Voting Rights Act. I could not, and would not, cast a vote that would give them any legitimacy.

Representative Ward Johnson submitted the following reason for vote to be printed in the journal:

When the redistricting map was proposed, I heard directly from the people of Houston, including the constituents of House District 139. Their message was clear: They overwhelmingly oppose the redistricting maps that would dilute their voting power.

Under this proposed map, the residents of HD 139 would be moved out of the historic Congressional District 18—a district that has long represented the voices of Black, brown, and other minority communities. This shift is not just a line on a map; it is an attempt to strip these communities of the power to choose a representative who reflects their values, concerns, and lived experiences.

HB 4 is a step backward for representation in Texas. It will reduce the number of minority congressional districts, despite the growing diversity of our state. In fact, under this map, we stand to lose at least five minority-majority congressional districts. This is why I joined my fellow democratic colleagues in breaking quorum—to fight back against racial gerrymandering and bring national attention to these unjust maps. These proposed changes are in direct violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a law that was designed to protect the voting power of all Americans, especially those in historically marginalized communities.

Texas deserves a redistricting process that reflects the diversity of its population—not one that silences it. Our quorum break was not just an act of protest; it was the beginning of a national fight to ensure that every Texan has the right to vote for representation that truly reflects their democratic values. I choose not to be on the floor to participate in the unjust HB 4 bill and the racial maps that it proposes. I will continue to fight for my constituents with every tool that the Constitution allows.

Speaker Burrows announced that the call of the house had expired and instructed the doorkeeper to unlock the doors.

At 6:18 p.m., Representative Geren moved that, at the conclusion of the reading of bills and resolutions on first reading and referral to committees, the receipt of messages, and administrative actions, the house recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The motion prevailed.

Bills and joint resolutions were at this time laid before the house, read first time, and referred to committees. (See the addendum to the daily journal, Referred to Committees, List Nos. 1 and 2.)

(Metcalf in the chair)

In accordance with a previous motion, the house, at 6:32 p.m., recessed until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The following bills and joint resolutions were today laid before the house, read first time, and referred to committees, and the following resolutions were today laid before the house and referred to committees. If indicated, the chair today corrected the referral of the following measures:

List No. 1

HB 38 (By Schofield), Relating to the rate at which interest accrues in connection with the deferral or abatement of the collection of ad valorem taxes on certain residence homesteads.

To Ways and Means.

HB 41 (By Schofield), Relating to the establishment of a limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that certain taxing units may impose on the residence homesteads of individuals who are disabled or elderly and their surviving spouses.

To Ways and Means.

HB 46 (By Tepper), Relating to a limit on political subdivision expenditures.

To Intergovernmental Affairs.

HB 47 (By Tepper and Lambert), Relating to the authority of a property owner to obtain an injunction restraining the collection of ad valorem taxes by a taxing unit if the taxing unit adopts a tax rate that exceeds the voter-approval tax rate and subsequently takes an action that constitutes a material deviation from the stated purpose of the tax increase.

To Ways and Means.

HB 49 (By Tepper), Relating to restrictions on the use of certain ad valorem tax revenue for the payment of public securities.

To Ways and Means.

HB 62 (By Gervin-Hawkins), Relating to the operability of first responder and public safety communication services used in responding to natural disasters or other emergencies on the Capitol grounds.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 64 (By Cain, Gerdes, Cook, Harris, and Ashby), Relating to a vacancy in the office of senator or representative due to excessive absence.

To State Affairs.

HB 77 (By Cain), Relating to the repeal of or limitations on certain state and local taxes, including school district maintenance and operations ad valorem taxes, the enactment of state and local value added taxes, and related school finance reform; imposing taxes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 83 (By Slawson), Relating to the repeal of the additional ad valorem taxes imposed as a result of a change of use of certain land.

To Ways and Means.

HB 84 (By Tepper), Relating to the limitations on increases in the appraised value of certain property for ad valorem tax purposes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 85 (By Gerdes), Relating to the vote required in an election to approve an ad valorem tax rate that exceeds a taxing unit's voter-approval tax rate; making conforming changes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 92 (By Toth), Relating to the repeal of or limitations on certain state and local taxes, including school district maintenance and operations ad valorem taxes, the enactment of state and local value added taxes, and related school finance reform; imposing taxes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 98 (By Kerwin), Relating to the repeal of or limitations on certain state and local taxes, including school district maintenance and operations ad valorem taxes, the enactment of state and local value added taxes, and related school finance reform; imposing taxes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 99 (By Dean), Relating to the repeal of or limitations on certain state and local taxes, including school district maintenance and operations ad valorem taxes, the enactment of state and local value added taxes, related school finance reform, and directing the comptroller to identify alternatives to local ad valorem taxes; imposing taxes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 100 (By Dean), Relating to the use of certain federal funds received by the state to provide property tax refunds to Texas homestead owners.

To Ways and Means.

HB 101 (By Dean), Relating to requiring voter approval for certain local tax rate increases adopted pursuant to a disaster declaration.

To Ways and Means.

HB 108 (By Zwiener), Relating to the authority of a county to establish drainage utilities, impose drainage fees, and regulate land use for the purpose of flood management.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 117 (By Zwiener), Relating to the authority of a county to regulate impervious cover in the unincorporated area of the county.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 119 (By Lalani), Relating to emergency preparedness and contingency operations plans, inspections, and enforcement for senior retirement communities.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 122 (By Landgraf, K. Bell, and Metcalf), Relating to eliminating certain state-required assessment instruments and certain end-of-course assessment instruments not required by federal law.

To Public Education.

HB 125 (By Zwiener), Relating to the regulation of stormwater management by certain counties.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 139 (By Isaac), Relating to the calculation of certain ad valorem tax rates of a taxing unit and the manner in which a proposed ad valorem tax rate that exceeds the voter-approval tax rate is approved; making conforming changes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 144 (By Money), Relating to the protection of an unborn child’s rights and criminal liability and justification for prohibited conduct.

To State Affairs.

HB 159 (By Shaheen), Relating to the use of interim testing and adaptive, growth-based assessment instruments for certain required assessments of public school students and prohibiting the use of the results of certain required assessments of public school students for certain purposes.

To Public Education.

HB 165 (By Metcalf), Relating to the management and removal of vegetation and debris by certain electric utilities.

To State Affairs.

HB 174 (By Hickland), Relating to the prohibition of lobbyist representation of both political subdivisions and private entities.

To State Affairs.

HB 176 (By Hickland), Relating to the repeal of provisions providing for the calculation of an unused increment rate and the use of that rate in calculating certain other ad valorem tax rates.

To Ways and Means.

HB 177 (By Hickland), Relating to the calculation of certain ad valorem tax rates of a taxing unit and the manner in which a proposed ad valorem tax rate that exceeds the voter-approval tax rate is approved; making conforming changes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 178 (By Hickland), Relating to efficiency audits for certain political subdivisions.

To Ways and Means.

HB 181 (By Gerdes), Relating to a limit on municipal and county expenditures.

To Intergovernmental Affairs.

HB 182 (By Flores), Relating to participation by flood prone counties in the National Weather Service StormReady program.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 183 (By C. Bell), Relating to an exemption from ad valorem taxation of the total appraised value of the residence homesteads of certain elderly individuals and their surviving spouses.

To Ways and Means.

HB 184 (By C. Bell), Relating to a limitation on increases in the appraised value of real property for ad valorem tax purposes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 185 (By Money), Relating to the use by a political subdivision of public funds for lobbying activities.

To State Affairs.

HB 186 (By Olcott), Relating to the use by a political subdivision of public funds for lobbying activities.

To State Affairs.

HB 187 (By Olcott), Relating to the authority of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to issue an emergency or temporary order requested by a county judge following a weather emergency.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 188 (By Morales Shaw), Relating to the creation of the Texas Rural Emergency Preparedness Fund for flood-prone communities.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 189 (By Morales Shaw), Relating to requiring certain governmental entities to allow interested persons to comment on the proposed adoption or revision of certain emergency management plans.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 190 (By Morales Shaw), Relating to state and local government disaster preparedness.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 191 (By Virdell), Relating to a preference in state purchasing for certain goods and services used in a disaster area.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 194 (By Curry), Relating to flood safety signage in certain areas in flood-prone municipalities and counties.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 195 (By Curry), Relating to designating certain substances as Schedule IV controlled substances under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.

To State Affairs.

HB 197 (By Curry), Relating to a study on establishing testing and scientific standards for determining tetrahydrocannabinol intoxication.

To Public Health.

HB 200 (By Little), Relating to the maintenance of emergency communication devices for certain facilities serving vulnerable populations.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 201 (By LaHood), Relating to the exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the appraised value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of such a veteran based on the disability rating of the veteran.

To Ways and Means.

HB 202 (By LaHood), Relating to the exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the appraised value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of such a veteran based on the disability rating of the veteran.

To Ways and Means.

HB 203 (By LaHood), Relating to a limit on political subdivision expenditures and the adoption of ad valorem tax rates.

To Ways and Means.

HB 204 (By Paul), Relating to the governance and territory of the Harris County Flood Control District.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 205 (By Wilson), Relating to authorizing certain projects to be undertaken in response to a disaster by certain economic development corporations.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 210 (By Lozano), Relating to the definition of "residence homestead" for purposes of the exemption from ad valorem taxation of the residence homestead of a totally disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of such a veteran.

To Ways and Means.

HB 211 (By Money), Relating to the calculation of the voter-approval tax rate of certain taxing units and the manner in which a proposed ad valorem tax rate that exceeds the voter-approval tax rate is approved by the voters.

To Ways and Means.

HB 215 (By Martinez), Relating to establishment of the disaster identification system for a declared state of disaster.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 216 (By Troxclair), Relating to the provision of an abortion-inducing drug.

To State Affairs.

HB 217 (By Virdell), Relating to the creation of a flood recovery loan program to provide low-interest loans to persons who are victims of flood-related disasters.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 218 (By Troxclair), Relating to prohibition of transporting or funding the transportation of an unemancipated minor for an abortion; providing a civil penalty; creating a criminal offense.

To State Affairs.

HB 219 (By Little), Relating to the limitation on increases in the appraised value of a residence homestead for ad valorem taxation.

To Ways and Means.

HB 220 (By Troxclair), Relating to the vote required by the governing body of a taxing unit to adopt an ad valorem tax rate that exceeds the voter-approval tax rate or authorize the issuance of tax bonds.

To Ways and Means.

HB 222 (By Troxclair), Relating to reducing school district maintenance and operations ad valorem taxes through the use of certain surplus state revenue.

To Ways and Means.

HB 223 (By Troxclair), Relating to municipal and county financial requirements.

To Intergovernmental Affairs.

HB 224 (By Metcalf), Relating to youth camp emergency preparedness plans.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 226 (By Richardson), Relating to the required provision to campers at youth camps of active radio frequency identification tags.

To Public Health.

HB 228 (By Dyson), Relating to expenditures for lobbying activities made by certain entities.

To State Affairs.

HB 229 (By Patterson, Hefner, Shaheen, Wilson, and Metcalf), Relating to the use by a political subdivision of public funds for lobbying and certain other activities.

To State Affairs.

HB 231 (By Gerdes), Relating to an exemption from the requirement to obtain a permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for certain dams or reservoirs operated and maintained for the purposes of erosion, floodwater, and sediment control.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 232 (By Virdell), Relating to establishment of the disaster recovery fund.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 234 (By Cunningham), Relating to the suspension of toll collection while an evacuation order is in effect.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 236 (By Hayes), Relating to an affirmative defense to prosecution for certain victims of trafficking of persons or compelling prostitution.

To Criminal Jurisprudence.

HB 239 (By Guillen), Relating to the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of land subject to a quarantine established by the Texas Animal Health Commission for ticks or screwworms.

To Ways and Means.

HB 240 (By Guillen), Relating to the definitions of certain terms for purposes of the exemption from ad valorem taxation of farm products in the hands of the producer.

To Ways and Means.

HB 242 (By Muñoz), Relating to the collection of delinquent ad valorem taxes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 243 (By Muñoz), Relating to the creation and operation of the Texas Interoperability Council and a grant program administered by the council.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 244 (By Martinez), Relating to flood control measures for Texas Department of Transportation highway projects.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HB 245 (By Muñoz), Relating to the collection of delinquent ad valorem taxes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 246 (By Muñoz), Relating to the abolition of ad valorem taxes and the creation of a joint interim committee on the abolition of those taxes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 247 (By Muñoz), Relating to the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools.

To Public Education.

HB 248 (By Muñoz), Relating to the jurisdiction of statutory county courts and creation of an additional statutory probate court in Hidalgo County.

To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence.

HB 249 (By Cook), Relating to a limitation on increases in the appraised value of real property for ad valorem tax purposes.

To Ways and Means.

HB 250 (By Cook), Relating to the exemption from ad valorem taxation of a percentage of the assessed value of a property owned by certain disabled veterans and the amount of the exemption for the surviving spouses and children of certain disabled veterans.

To Ways and Means.

HB 251 (By Cook), Relating to the determination of the value not in dispute of property that is the subject of an ad valorem tax protest or appeal.

To Ways and Means.

HB 254 (By Ashby), Relating to eligibility of a political subdivision for a grant from the Rural Infrastructure Disaster Recovery Program.

To Disaster Preparedness and Flooding, Select.

HJR 1 (By Shaheen), Proposing a constitutional amendment specifying the authority of the attorney general to prosecute a criminal offense prescribed by the election laws of this state.

To State Affairs.

HJR 6 (By Schofield), Proposing a constitutional amendment establishing a limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that certain political subdivisions may impose on the residence homesteads of persons who are disabled or elderly and their surviving spouses.

To Ways and Means.

HJR 9 (By Tepper), Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to set lower limits on the maximum appraised value of residence homesteads and of real property other than a residence homestead for ad valorem tax purposes and to make permanent the limit on the maximum appraised value of real property other than a residence homestead.

To Ways and Means.

HJR 13 (By Leo Wilson), Proposing a constitutional amendment specifying the authority of the attorney general to prosecute a criminal offense prescribed by the election laws of this state.

To State Affairs.

HJR 15 (By C. Bell), Proposing a constitutional amendment to exempt from ad valorem taxation the total market value of the residence homesteads of certain elderly persons and their surviving spouses.

To Ways and Means.

HJR 16 (By C. Bell), Proposing a constitutional amendment to exempt from ad valorem taxation the total market value of the residence homesteads of certain elderly persons and their surviving spouses.

To Ways and Means.

HJR 17 (By Money), Proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish ad valorem taxes.

To Ways and Means.

HJR 18 (By C. Bell), Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to limit the maximum appraised value of real property for ad valorem tax purposes.

To Ways and Means.

HJR 19 (By LaHood), Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of such a veteran based on the disability rating of the veteran.

To Ways and Means.

HJR 20 (By Little), Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to set a lower limit on the maximum appraised value of a residence homestead for ad valorem taxation.

To Ways and Means.

HJR 23 (By Muñoz), Proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish ad valorem taxes.

To Ways and Means.

HJR 24 (By Cook), Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to limit the maximum appraised value of real property for ad valorem tax purposes.

To Ways and Means.

HJR 25 (By Cook), Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation a percentage of the assessed value of property owned by certain disabled veterans.

To Ways and Means.

List No. 2

HB 7 (By Leach), Relating to prohibitions on the manufacturing and provision of abortion-inducing drugs, including the jurisdiction of and the effect of certain judgments by certain courts within and outside this state with respect to the manufacturing and provision of those drugs, and to protections from certain counter actions under laws other than the laws of this state; authorizing qui tam actions.

To State Affairs.