Tarrant County sued over new commissioners court map; lawsuit claims racial discrimination
The Brief
Tarrant County and Judge Tim O'Hare face a federal lawsuit alleging their new commissioners court map is racially discriminatory.
The suit claims the map violates voting rights by concentrating most minority voters into one precinct, diluting their influence elsewhere.
The map was approved by a 3-2 vote on Tuesday.
TARRANT COUNTY, Texas - A federal lawsuit has been filed against Tarrant County and Judge Tim O'Hare claiming the county's new commissioners court map intentionally discriminates based on race.
The lawsuit comes just one day after the Republican-led Commissioners Court approved the new map in a 3-2 vote.
The suit claims the new map violates the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
The backstory
Currently, Tarrant County Commissioners Court consists of Republican County Judge Tim O'Hare, two Republican Commissioners and two Democratic commissioners.
Critics of redistricting say the new map increases the chances that at least one of the two Democratic-leaning precincts will flip during the next election.
O'Hare told FOX 4 the redistricting effort fulfills a campaign promise to increase the court's Republican majority.
"For us not to do that, when we are the controlling party, the majority party, would be foolish on our part, because we know if we lost, they would do the exact same thing," said O'Hare. "Tarrant County is alive and well in terms of being a red county and we intend to keep it that way."
Dig deeper
The lawsuit says that on April 2, 2025, Tarrant County entered into a contract with the Virginia-based Public Interest Legal Foundation to redraw the districts.
According to the suit, the new map packs the bulk of the county's minority voters into one precinct while splitting the others among the three other precincts.
"While Map 7 disenfranchises just 5% of Tarrant County's Anglo adults, it disenfranchises 19% of the County's Black adults and 12% of its Latino adults. Black adults are thus four times more likely than Anglo adults to be disenfranchised under Map 7 and Latino adults are over twice as likely to be disenfranchised than Anglo adults," reads the suit.
Five Tarrant County voters who are now in new districts were named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
The suit claims the Black and Latino voters are disenfranchised because they are now unable to vote for County Commissioner in the Nov. 2026 election. Under the previous map, they would have been able to cast their ballot.
Typically, redistricting is done every 10 years after the census.
The Tarrant County Commissioners Court voted not to change it after the 2020 census.
The suit argues that there was no population imbalance or other reason to require the map change.
"Specifically, the plan was drafted and passed in a process designed to be discriminatory, at least in part, to minimize the political power of Black voters and Latino voters by limiting their ability to influence commissioner court elections to a single district out of four when minorities are the majority of residents in the County and just shy of half of eligible voters in Tarrant County," reads the suit.
The suit calls to permanently stop Tarrant County from adopting Map 7 and asks for any future maps to go under review in federal court.
What they're saying
FOX 4 reached out to Chad Ruback, an attorney who is not involved in the case, to get some outside perspective on the situation. While Ruback confirmed that it's legal to redraw district lines for partisan purposes, he also says it will be an uphill battle for the county officials.
"On the other hand, it is not appropriate, it is not legal to redistrict for the purpose of diminishing the rights of certain classes of people like minorities," Ruback said.
According to the attorney, the county will have to prove that increasing Republican representation is not the sole purpose behind redistricting.
"I believe they could prevail if they showed that Judge O'Hare and his Republican colleagues on the commissioners court were motivated to specifically hurt minority votes," he said.
The lawsuit attempts to do just that, citing examples of previous statements made by O'Hare, and his actions in previous government positions. However, Ruback says this may not be enough evidence.
"If they have some statement made to a news reporter several years ago that sort of kind of might have suggested there might be redistricting, and it might hurt minority votes, that's probably not going to be enough to carry their burden," said Ruback.
The other side
O'Hare's office sent a statement to FOX 4 in response to the suit. It says, in part:
"The refusal of Democrats to accept settled law will waste Tarrant County taxpayer dollars. The commissioners court voted by a 3-2 majority for more Republican representation, which is perfectly legal under all applicable laws of the United States and the state of Texas."
What's next
According to Ruback, if more lawsuits are filed on the same issue, they'll likely be consolidated to a single case.
More evidence may be presented in the current suit, but Ruback says it remains unclear. He said it could be months before a resolution is made in the case.
The Source
Information in this article comes from a lawsuit filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division and past FOX 4 coverage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump ropes Fed into debt fight as GOP faces fiscal mess
President Trump is pushing the Federal Reserve to go beyond its legal mandate and help him manage the national debt as Republicans face growing pressure over the nation's finances. In a series of remarks and social media posts, Trump has ripped Fed Chair Jerome Powell for refusing to lower interest rates, insisting he should help the White House manage the costs of servicing more than $36 trillion in national debt. ''Too Late' Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government, and the Fed Board is complicit,' Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social, a day after the Fed held rates steady. While Trump has spent most of his two White House stints berating Powell to cut rates, only recently has he tied those demands to the country's deteriorating fiscal health. 'We're beginning to see what I think are the early warning signs that the Fed is going to be increasingly called upon to keep the government solvent,' said David Beckworth, senior research fellow and monetary policy director at the Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning think tank at George Mason University. 'When you begin to see this type of rhetoric, it's a clear sign that people are beginning to get nervous,' Beckworth explained. 'And how else can we save money? Well, let's turn into the Fed and put pressure on them.' Trump's escalating pressure on Powell over the national debt comes as he and Republicans stand to add trillions of dollars to it through a major tax-cut bill. Republican lawmakers are attempting to find common ground on what Trump has called his 'big, beautiful bill.' The legislation features an extension of his 2017 tax cuts, additional cuts the president proposed during the 2024 campaign, and steep cuts to social safety net programs. While GOP lawmakers claim the bill would help solve the country's fiscal woes, a range of ideologically diverse analysts forecast the bill to add anywhere between $2 trillion to nearly $4 trillion to the national debt. At the same time, Trump is attempting to secure GOP support to raise the debt ceiling before the Treasury Department runs out of ways to avoid a default — a deadline that could come as soon as August. Trump is 'kind of speaking out of both sides of his mouth,' said Dan Alpert, managing partner at investment firm Westwood Capital 'He's got this enormous, $3.5 trillion dollar continuation of a tax cut from his first term that he wants to get across the line,' Alpert added. Republican lawmakers have argued that such estimates don't take into account the economic growth unlocked by lower tax rates, which they say would help narrow deficits over time. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that even when accounting for growth impacts, the bill would still add $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next ten years — more than the CBO projected without considering the preferred GOP scoring. 'The fundamental issue is we have a Congress and a president who cannot bring the budget deficit under control,' Beckworth said. While both Republicans and Democrats are to blame, he added, 'for a party that has claimed historically it is concerned about their debt burden, it is going to blow things up even more.' Trump's efforts to push the Fed into managing the debt mark a significant break from more than 70 years of federal economic policy. During World War I and II, the Fed yielded to pressure from presidential administrations to keep interest rates low and ease the burden of the rising debt. While that practice extended for nearly a decade after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Fed and Treasury eventually reached an agreement in 1951, setting the stage for the next seven decades of economic management. 'The purpose of the 'accord' was to make Treasury manage its debt, rather than expecting the Fed to 'monetize' it. In turn, the Fed asserted its control of monetary policy via the setting of interest rates to meet congressional mandates for price stability and maximizing employment,' said Sarah Binder, political science professor at George Washington University and co-author of 'The Myth of Independence: How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve.' The Fed has since avoided anything that could be considered financing the federal debt while sticking to its 'dual mandate' of balancing unemployment and inflation. And while several presidents have verbally pressured the Fed to keep rates low since 1951, none has made a formal move to limit its legal authority over monetary policy. 'Based on most concepts of 'independent' monetary policy, the central bank shouldn't be monetizing the debt. That is, it shouldn't be taking the administration's financing needs into account when it aims to meet its mandates,' Binder said. 'Those mandates are price stability and strong labor markets,' she added. 'Congress has not given the Fed an additional mandate to make it easier for the Treasury to finance its debt.' But Trump could be laying the groundwork for a shift toward a 'fiscal dominance' regime, Beckworth warned, in which the Fed would be forced to clean up the government's fiscal mess and abandon the bank's legal obligation to keep prices stable and unemployment low. 'Maybe we're not there yet, but we're getting close,' Beckworth said. 'If they push, push, push, and then at some point, the Fed loses independence … and it's no longer able to control inflation.' Trump griped Wednesday, hours before the Fed's latest hold, that he was unable to sway Powell into making major interest rate reductions. 'He's not a smart person,' Trump said of Powell. 'I think he hates me, but that's OK, you know, he should. He should. I call him every name in the book to get him to do something.' Powell brushed off several questions Wednesday about Trump's attacks and the potential debt impact of the president's agenda, but has implored the White House and Congress throughout his time as Fed chief to get the nation's finances on a sustainable track. Trump will be able to add 'former Chair' to his list of names for Powell come 2026, when his four-year term leading the Fed board lapses. Whomever Trump nominates to succeed Powell will almost certainly be more aligned with the president's thinking and face an easy path to confirmation in a GOP-controlled Senate. Even so, Powell is but one of 12 Fed officials on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) who vote to set interest rates — all of whom voted to keep borrowing costs steady Wednesday. 'Even if you got rid of Powell, you'd have to remake the FOMC with yes-men,' Beckworth said. Powell could also choose to stay on as a member of the Fed board through 2028. That would be an usual move for a former Fed chair, but Powell has not ruled it out. 'Powell has not budged, and the FOMC has not budged despite Trump's incessant ranting and pressure and whatever else he can throw at them,' Beckworth said. 'They're still sticking to their guns.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Danville police searching for missing 9-year-old boy with autism
Danville police are searching for a 9-year-old boy with autism who disappeared Saturday evening. Alex Duarte, who is believed to be around Camino Tassajara and Blackhawk Drive, was last seen in the area around 6:30 p.m. Saturday, the Danville Police Department said Sunday morning. Alex, who is nonverbal, is Latino, stands 4 feet 11 inches, weighs about 70 pounds, and has black hair and brown eyes. He was last seen wearing gray shorts and a black T-shirt. Several agencies are aiding in the search, police said. Anyone with information on Alex's disappearance should contact Danville police at 925-646-2441 immediately.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Trump Got This One Right
'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.
