Texas Appeals Racial Gerrymandering Ruling on Congressional Map
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has appealed to the Supreme Court a federal court ruling that deemed a recently enacted congressional redistricting map to be racial gerrymandering. The map, which received support from former President Trump, was found to violate the voting rights of minority communities.
Governor's Response
Governor Abbott, a Republican, stated that "Any claim that these maps are discriminatory is absurd and unsupported by the testimony offered during ten days of hearings." He further characterized the ruling as "clearly erroneous" and suggested it "undermines the authority the U.S. Constitution assigns to the Texas Legislature by imposing a different map by judicial edict."
Federal Court's Decision
Earlier, a three-judge panel temporarily blocked the map passed by Republican lawmakers this summer. The panel ordered Texas to revert to the district maps used in the previous two election cycles. Judges determined that the map was drawn to give Republicans an advantage in potentially five House seats held by Democrats and intentionally targeted Black and Latino voters in a manner that would dilute their voting power, thereby violating the federal Voting Rights Act.
The majority opinion from the three-judge panel stated, "To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map." The panel had conducted a trial on the case in October.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also announced plans to appeal the ruling on the map, which he described as "entirely legal."
Democratic Reaction and Legislative Context
Democrats expressed approval of the court's decision. Texas Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher commented, "Race was always a driving factor and a driving factor to make it harder for minority Texans. This map was drawn to make it harder for them to have an impact in elections."
Texas lawmakers, utilizing their Republican majority, passed the map in August with the stated aim of increasing their party's representation in the 2026 U.S. House elections. The legislative process garnered national attention when Democratic lawmakers left the state for over two weeks to delay a vote, prompting Republican leaders to threaten their arrest. Democrats argued that the new map would weaken the voting power of Latino and Black communities.
Redistricting efforts in Texas also coincided with actions by California Democrats, who passed an initiative allowing redistricting that could lead to Democrats gaining five seats in that state.
Partisan vs. Racial Gerrymandering
Republicans in the Texas Legislature stated the map was designed to enhance their party's prospects of winning congressional seats. They cited that Texas law does not prohibit redistricting for partisan advantage, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot intervene in such cases. However, partisan gerrymandering can coincide with racial gerrymandering, which is illegal. Opponents of the map argued in court that it intentionally diminished the voting power of minority communities, a claim the court ultimately affirmed.
District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, a Trump appointee, authored the 160-page opinion. His ruling referenced statements and contradictions made by Republican lawmakers during the map's passage.
Role of Justice Department Letter
A letter from the Department of Justice, which aimed to encourage redistricting, became a basis for the court's decision to block the effort. The judges noted that when Governor Abbott initially convened lawmakers to draw the map, he referenced this letter from Justice Department officials. The letter had criticized districts with majority non-white voting populations as "racial gerrymanders," implying they provided an advantage to non-white voters that needed to be reversed. Texas Republicans later stated the map was intended for partisan gain rather than to correct a racial imbalance.
University of Texas at Austin political scientist Josh Blank noted that the letter placed lawmakers, who had previously denied using race in map-making, in a "difficult spot" due to conflicting statements.
Judge Brown's ruling also criticized the letter itself, sent by Harmeet Dhillon, head of the Justice Department's civil rights division. Brown wrote, "It's challenging to unpack the DOJ Letter because it contains so many factual, legal, and typographical errors."
Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist with the University of Houston, characterized the decision as "a rebuke of Donald Trump and to some degree a rebuke of lawmakers in Texas," suggesting the court found the process flawed and the Justice Department's legal arguments lacked credibility.
Representative Gene Wu, a Democratic leader in the Texas House, stated that the ruling indicates the courts uphold American principles, particularly the "one man, one vote idea."
Nationwide Redistricting Context
Nationally, Republicans possess more opportunities for redistricting due to their control over a greater number of state legislatures. Typically, states undergo redistricting at the start of each decade following the national census.
Following calls from former President Trump, lawmakers in Missouri and North Carolina passed new maps that could potentially enable the GOP to gain one seat in each state. Ohio also implemented a map that analysts suggest provides Republicans a slight advantage in several seats. For Democrats, in addition to potential gains in California, a court-ordered redistricting in Utah could lead to a gain of one seat, and Virginia Democrats have initiated a process that could yield two seats in that state.