Redistricting attempts in Tarrant County had no support from the public at the Tarrant County Commissioners Court’s meeting Tuesday.
With more than 20 people signed up to address the court, every single speaker voiced opposition to five possible redistricting maps released Friday.
Precinct 3 Commissioner Matt Krause was absent.
Public speakers described the redistricting attempt as gerrymandering and an attack on people of color in Tarrant County. Several called it an effort by the Republican majority on the court to remove one of the two Democratic commissioners, Alisa Simmons, by breaking up communities that previously supported her.
Simmons, who represents Precinct 2, released the proposed maps Friday, all of which would dramatically alter the two Democrat-controlled precincts in the southern part of the county.
The maps, each with their own variations, would take a chunk of Arlington from Simmons’ precinct, extending it west through Fort Worth’s southern suburbs. Republican County Judge Tim O’Hare, who represents the entire county and not any particular precinct, brought the redistricting plan to commissioners court.
Opponents of the map Tuesday said the changes would put Simmons and other democrats in that area at a disadvantage, alleging the Republican majority is gerrymandering.
It’s a criticism that’s been shared since the court voted 3-2 along party lines in April to hire a conservative law firm to redraw commissioners’ precincts.
Republic commissioners supported the move, arguing that redistricting is long overdue, while democrats accused GOP members of using a redraw to strengthen their majority.
Simmons, who will be up for reelection next year, said she sees the redistricting as an attempt by her Republican colleagues to draw her out of her seat.
She said all the proposed maps remove from her district the constituents who elected her and undermine the voices of minorities and their communities.
“The proposed maps submitted by the Public Interest Legal Foundation and the data accompanying them are wholly inadequate to allow me or any responsible person to adequately analyze the impact on Tarrant County citizens, especially minority citizens," Simmons said during the meeting. "The maps themselves do not display important information, including the overlay of existing boundaries. ... The lack of data analysis is insulting.”
The maps
Five maps were provided by the firm hired for the redistricting, Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF).
They drew criticism from Simmons, Precinct 1 Commissioner Roderick Miles and every person who shared their opinions during public comments.
Many pointed out how the maps dramatically alter the southern precincts for Simmons and Miles, but kept the northern ones — those of Republican Commissioners Matt Krause and Manny Ramirez — largely the same.
Most shared concerns that redistricting, especially with the proposed maps, would divide communities of color and weaken their voices.
One speaker, Billy Wilson, said the maps are all “cracking and packing” to minimize the voting power of people of color while further cementing Republican control.
Joseph Nixon, a litigation counselor for PILF, said the maps were drawn based on preferences expressed by commissioners and O'Hare. Simmons pointed out that she and Roderick told PILF their preference was to keep the existing districts.
Nixon acknowledged that and said that's why he included the current district map in the presentation, leading Simmons to ask why there were five map variations when only Ramirez, Krause and O'Hare share preferences for a new map. Nixon didn't have a direct answer.
Simmons also questioned why the redistricting was happening.
She asked Nixon multiple times if there was a legal basis that required the county to redistrict.
"Is there a legal reason to make any changes to the current boundaries?" Simmons asked.
Nixon each time did not directly answer the question, saying instead that the redistricting was being done because the commissioners court has the legal right to do it.
Simmons and public speakers also protested PILF as the firm because of its history of partisan political action.
Public Interest Legal Foundation
PILF has a reputation as a conservative firm, in part because of its association with the Heritage Foundation Project 2025 advisory board.
In a news release announcing its appointment to the board, PILF said the advisory group exists “to guide the project’s efforts and position the movement to take the reins of government” by providing policy recommendations and train people “needed to defeat the administrative state and implement conservative policies.”
PILF was also criticized for its role in several lawsuits attempting to access voter information and the results of a 2021 redistricting in Galveston County that involved the firm.
The redistricting in Galveston County was challenged in a lawsuit. A district court initially found that the district map applied in Galveston County was found to violate the Voting Rights Act by separating racial groups.
That decision was overturned by the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last year remanded the case to the lower court. The decision threw out the 5th Circuit’s 1988 decision in Campos v. City of Baytown which found Section 2 protected the rights of racial and ethnic groups to form coalitions.
"After reconsidering Campos en banc, this court holds that 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," Judge Edith H. Jones wrote for the majority.
The higher court's decision to send the case back to a district court didn't dissuade Simmons from pointing to it as an example of PILF's history of "work to undermine the voting rights act."
"It’s very concerning that this county has selected someone with your background to shepherd or oversee this process," she said.
Simmons and Nixon argued back and forth throughout the briefing. Simmons asked several questions about Nixon and the firm's background, court cases and lawsuits in which PILF was involved and details about the maps proposed.
The exchange at times became heated, with Nixon and Simmons talking over each other, arguing over facts and debating how accessible PILF has been to commissioners and the public.
Nixon at one point said Simmons was asking misleading questions and presenting false information.
“I’m embarrassed for you for the things you said," Nixon told her at one point.
Simmons responded that she knew the answers to the questions she asked, could cite sources and that Nixon shouldn't be embarrassed for her and accused him of trying to avoid answering her questions.
"You probably have to be embarrassed for yourself for trying to skirt these questions,” she told him.
Simmons also requested the county hire the Brazil and Dunn law firm to examine redistricting maps, as well. That was supposed to be decided Tuesday, but Simmons withdrew the agenda item.
Four people during public comments urged the commissioners to approve the request, saying the redistricting eliminates representation for already underrepresented communities. They argued another firm would be able to share a fresh perspective and fix problems they saw with the maps.
Community involvement
Community members told the commissioners court Tuesday that they’re disappointed, or in some cases insulted, that county leaders and PILF representatives haven’t sought their input.
Several pointed to Fort Worth’s recent redistricting, which allowed a longer timeline and offered residents a tool where they could draw their own maps. That tool would tell them when the district map they drew violated any laws and how.
Public hearings were another point of contention. Four have been scheduled, one for each district: May 13 at 6 p.m. at the Azle ISD Administration Building in Azle; May 14 at 6 p.m. at the Como Community Center in Fort Worth; May 17 at 10 a.m. at the Tarrant County Sub Courthouse in Arlington, and May 21 at 6 p.m. at the Gary Fickes Northeast Courthouse in Hurst.
Simmons said public hearings also need to have Nixon and whoever is drawing the redistricting maps present.
“It is essential that the map drawer, Adam Kincaid, appear before this court and share the maps he made, the criteria he used, the direction he was given," Simmons said. "If he’s not present then all consideration of the proposed maps should be delayed and the timeline pushed back.”
Nixon said PILF has "bent over backwards" to listen to county residents and has offered to meet with Simmons multiple times.
Simmons, who attended the meeting virtually after undergoing surgery, said PILF has not committed to Nixon's attendance and has made no effort to have the map drawer at public hearings.
“You’re not doing me any favors. I’m paying you to shepherd this process," she told Nixon, referring to the county's payment to PILF. "Attending the public hearings is not doing us a favor. Accommodating my schedule because I had surgery is not doing me a favor. You’re being paid by me to do this, so let's get this straight.”
The final public hearing being scheduled for May 21, in Krause’s Precinct 3, led some speakers to question whether any input at the hearing would have enough time to impact the maps. It’s only 13 days before the final vote, slated for June 3.
Diana Cason, one of the public speakers, said that redistricting is “a large, significant undertaking” and that she had “concerns about a rushed decision.”
“That doesn’t seem to be enough time for any meaningful input to be considered and implemented,” she told the court.
Got a tip? Email James Hartley at jhartley@kera.org. You can follow James on X @ByJamesHartley.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
