(The Center Square) – On the call for the special legislative session, which began Monday, is the task of redistricting Texas’ 38 congressional districts.

The special session has begun for an initial 30 days to address 18 legislative priorities identified by Gov. Greg Abbott, including redistricting. The governor may extend the special session for another 30 days and amend agenda items at any time.

In Abbott’s call for the special session, he said the legislature must pass legislation “that provides a revised congressional redistricting plan in light of constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.”

The legislature is also “working in lockstep on congressional redistricting legislation,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dustin Burrows said in a joint statement.

“Working with the House, the Texas Senate will move forward on redistricting to pass a legal, constitutional congressional map,” Patrick said.

“Texans place their trust in the Legislature to uphold fairness in the redistricting process, and we will continue to work closely together to fulfill this legislative responsibility,” Burrows said.

On Monday, Burrows announced he created the House Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting and appointed a bipartisan group of 21 members to serve on it. 

They include state Reps. Cody Vasut as chair and Jon Rosenthal as vice chair and Reps. Josey Garcia, Charlie Geren, Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, R.D. “Bobby” Guerra, Ryan Guillen, Cole Hefner, Hillary Hickland, Todd Hunter, Christian Manuel, Will Metcalf, John McQueeney, Joe Moody, Katrina Pierson, David Spiller, Carl Tepper, Senfronia Thompson, Chris Turner, Terry Wilson and Gene Wu.

Patrick has yet to announce Senate committee members.

The Texas legislature has published information about the redistricting process, including about the Legislative Redistricting Board, public hearing process, judicial review and elections. Generally, redistricting takes place after a federal census. Because the last census was conducted in 2020 and the Texas legislature meets every other year during odd years, the legislature convened in 2021 to implement a redistricting plan.

That plan passed the legislature, was approved by the governor, and was met with lawsuits beginning in October 2021. It has been in litigation ever since.

The cases were consolidated into one case before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This May and June, oral arguments were heard in the consolidated cases, LULAC v. Abbott and the court ordered the involved parties to submit post-trial briefs no later than September 3. The groups argue the redistricting plan violates the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.

As with other bills and committees, the select committee will hold public hearings to allow “citizens to present relevant testimony concerning the impact of existing districts, local preferences for district changes, communities of interest, local voting patterns, and other issues that the legislature may consider when redrawing district lines. The hearings also promote public awareness of the legislative redistricting process,” the legislature explains.

This year’s process includes the legislature proposing, voting on and potentially passing a redistricting bill. The governor may sign the bill into law, allow it to go into effect without signing it or veto it. If it fails to pass or is vetoed, the Legislative Redistricting Board would meet as required by the Texas Constitution. The LRB is comprised of the lieutenant governor, House speaker, attorney general, comptroller, and General Land Office commissioner.

If the redistricting plan is adopted, it would become effective for the following primary and general election, which would be in 2026. However, Democratic opposition is expected throughout the process and lawsuits are also expected as was the case in 2021.

If or when a redistricting law becomes effective, before elections are held in new districts, impacted counties are required to change their voting precinct boundaries. Candidates for state legislative office are required to have resided in the district they seek to represent for at least one year before the general election is held.

(The Center Square) – North Carolina is one of three states late on an enacted budget for July 1.

Lawmakers in Pennsylvania and Oregon are also late, according to research by The Center for Square and the National Association of State Budget Officers. Michigan’s fiscal year begins Oct. 1 and is the other state without a spending plan in place for the coming year.

The North Carolina fiscal year runs July 1-June 30, and two-year budgets are required by law in the odd-numbered years. These are also known as the long sessions of the two-year legislative calendar.

“As states enter fiscal 2026, they are contending with a combination of increasing spending demands, slowing revenue growth, and federal fiscal uncertainty,” the national organization said. “They are facing budget pressures in a number of areas such as Medicaid, employee health care, education, housing affordability, and disaster preparation and response.”

The Legislature adjourned in late June without having passed a budget bill.

However, under legislation passed in 2016, there will be no state government shutdown, with spending remaining the same as it was under the previous budget.

The North Carolina House and Senate disagree on raises for state employees and the size of income tax cuts.

The legislative budgets total $65.9 billion while Gov. Josh Stein proposed $67.9 billion in spending.

Two years ago, the North Carolina budget was 84 days late before it was signed into law.

Although the lack of a budget has not affected government services in North Carolina, it has in Oregon, where the impasse prompted the state’s department of transportation to announce 483 layoffs.

“Consequences to essential transportation services are imminent across the state,” Gov. Tina Kotek said in a July 7 statement. “This is not business as usual. These layoffs constitute an emergency in Oregon’s transportation system that will hurt every part of Oregon.”

(The Center Square) – Cities that host the NFL Draft have seen small increases in hotel revenue in recent years but those gains are far smaller than what is claimed by teams, the National Football League and the marketing and tourism departments in local government have claimed.

The first three cities to host the draft after it left New York saw insignificant changes in hotel stays during the event while host cities since 2019 have seen between $4 million and $6 million in hotel revenue increases due to the event, according to a new paper provided to The Center Square from economist E. Frank Stephenson from Georgia’s Berry College.

Green Bay hosted the event in 2025 while Pittsburgh will host in 2026 and Washington, D.C. in 2027. All three claimed that large economic impacts would occur when hosting the event.

“The net gain in room rentals in the 2019-2024 host cities varies greatly from a decrease of nearly 20,000 room nights in Las Vegas to an increase of about 9,000 room nights in Nashville, but in all cases is a small fraction of the claimed number of people attending draft-related events,” Stephenson wrote. “Thus, the overwhelming majority of visitors are local residents or day-trippers and much of their spending is likely redirected from other local entertainment or dining options rather than being economic gains for the host cities.”

Stephenson wrote the paper hoping to shed light on annual claims by entities involved of large economic impacts related to hosting the event, used to justify spending on the event.

The paper comes as Experience Greater Green Bay and the Green Bay Packers claimed last week that there was an economic impact of $73 million in Brown County and nearly $105 million statewide.

Green Bay relied on surveys from marketing firm Sportsimpacts, which claimed that 50% of those attending the draft were from Brown County or day-trippers while 31% of attendees were from outside Wisconsin and 24% paid for overnight lodging with 29% staying in Brown County and 21% in Outagamie County.

Stephenson’s hotel data analysis ran through 2024, when Detroit hosted the draft. But the data consistently showed smaller impacts despite claims that hosting the draft had more than a $200 million impact on the Detroit area.

Wisconsin leaders claimed the event would have an economic impact of $94 million in the state and $20 million in the Green Bay area when attempting to divert public funding to the event.

“Every year these bogus economic claims about the NFL draft come out,” economist J.C. Bradbury wrote about the Green Bay tourism estimates heading into the event. “Economists haven’t studied it directly because it makes no sense. But we really could use an actual serious study to counteract this BS PR.”

The Las Vegas decrease in hotel stays for the draft are similar to when the city hosted the Super Bowl and Formula 1 Las Vegas Grand Prix, when it saw an increase in hotel rates but not occupancy.

Kansas City saw an increase in hotel rates and stays for the night before the draft and first two nights of the draft but then saw drops in hotel stays the third night of the draft and the night after that, what economists call the hangover effect of deterring regular guests after a large event.

“The cumulative effects … indicate a net gain of 4,416 room rentals and $4.98 million in hotel revenue,” Stephenson wrote. “While the effects in Kansas City are relatively large compared to all other host cities except Nashville, they do not support claims of a $60 million increase in lodging spending.

“As for other events, the Kansas City Chiefs increase room rentals by about 8,900 rooms and hotel revenue by $1.9 million per home game.”

The Detroit draft, meanwhile, led to a net increase of 2,800 room nights and approximately $5 million in additional hotel revenue compared to an increase of about 900 room nights and $450,000 in hotel revenue for each home Detroit Lions game.

“While a few host cities—Nashville, Kansas City, and Detroit—experience positive hotel occupancy effects, they are far short of claims about the event’s economic impact,” Stephenson wrote. “Moreover, even the modest positive hotel occupancy increases found in some cities are subject to leakages and may not benefit the host city’s economic conditions.”