Redistricting in Texas after the 2020 census

Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures • Majority-minority districts • Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 • Congressional apportionment • Redistricting committees • Deadlines • 2022 House elections with multiple incumbents • New U.S.House districts created after apportionment • Congressional maps • State legislative maps • Lawsuits • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections • Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Texas.

Legislative redistricting
Texas renewed its state legislative district boundaries in June 2023 for use in 2024 and until the 2030 census. These districts were the same as those enacted by the state in October 2021. Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed HB 1000 — establishing state House district boundaries — on June 12, 2023, and he allowed SB 375 — establishing state Senate district boundaries — to become law without his signature on June 18, 2023.

The Texas Tribune's James Barragan wrote in January 2023 that Senate Legislative Redistricting Committee Chairwoman Joan Huffman (R) said the state was re-doing the redistricting process "to ensure that Legislature had met its constitutional requirement to apportion districts in the first regular session after the publishing of the results of the federal census, which is done every 10 years. Because of the pandemic, census numbers were not released until after the end of the last regularly scheduled legislative session on May 31, 2021. Redistricted maps were passed in a subsequent special session that year." Texas had originally enacted new state legislative districts on October 25, 2021.

Click here for more information.

Congressional redistricting
Texas enacted new congressional districts on October 25, 2021. The Senate released a proposed congressional map on September 27, 2021, and approved an amended version of the proposal on October 8, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the House Redistricting Committee approved an amended version of the congressional map, and both chambers of the legislature approved a finalized version of the map on October 18, 2021. The Senate approved the proposal in an 18-13 vote, and the House approved the bill in an 84-59 vote. Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed the map into law on October 25, 2021. This map took effect for Texas' 2022 congressional elections.

Click here for more information.

Texas' 38 United States representatives and 181 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
2. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
6. Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in Texas is also provided.

Summary

This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

• June 18, 2023: Gov. Greg Abbott (R) allowed SB 375 to become law without his signature. The bill established state Senate district boundaries for use in 2024 and until the 2030 census. These districts were the same as those enacted by the state in October 2021.
• June 12, 2023: Gov. Abbott signed HB 1000 into law, which established state House district boundaries for use in 2024 and until the 2030 census. These districts were the same as those enacted by the state in October 2021.
• May 22, 2023: The Texas House of Representatives passed SB 375 by a vote of 85 to 61, establishing state Senate district boundaries for use in 2024 and until the 2030 census. These districts were the same as those enacted by the state in October 2021.
• May 19, 2023: The Texas Senate passed HB 1000 by a vote of 20 to 11, establishing state House district boundaries for use in 2024 and until the 2030 census. These districts were the same as those enacted by the state in October 2021.
• April 27, 2023: The Texas House of Representatives passed HB 1000 by a vote of 87 to 59, establishing state House district boundaries for use in 2024 and until the 2030 census. These districts were the same as those enacted by the state in October 2021.
• April 3, 2023: The Texas Senate passed SB 375 by a vote of 23 to seven, establishing state Senate district boundaries for use in 2024 and until the 2030 census. These districts were the same as those enacted by the state in October 2021.

• October 25, 2021: Gov. Abbott signed congressional, House, and Senate maps into law.
• October 18, 2021: The legislature approved a finalized version of the congressional district map.
• October 15, 2021: The House and Senate approved maps for each other's districts.
• October 13, 2021: Sen. Joan Huffman's (R) congressional map was approved by the House Redistricting Committee and will go before the full House for a vote.
• October 8, 2021: The Texas Senate approved Huffman's proposed congressional district map.
• October 7, 2021: An amended version of a map first proposed by the House Redistricting Committee on September 30, 2021 was approved by a full House vote along party lines.
• October 4, 2021: An amended version of the Senate district map proposal was approved by the Senate in a 20-11 vote.
• September 28, 2021: A Senate panel advanced the Senate legislative map proposal to the full Senate for debate.
• September 27, 2021: Lawmakers released a congressional district map proposal.
• September 18, 2021: The Senate Redistricting Committee released a draft of a Senate legislative map.
• September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• September 7, 2021: Gov. Abbott announced a third special legislative session beginning on September 20 that will focus on redistricting.
• September 1, 2021: Two Democratic state senators filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas saying that the state legislature cannot legally redraw district maps in a special session.
• August 31, 2021: The Texas Legislature approved Senate Bill 13, a bill that would delay 2022 primary elections in the state based on when redistricting is completed.
• August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment

Enacted state legislative district maps

State legislative maps enacted in 2023

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Texas renewed its state legislative district boundaries in June 2023 for use in 2024 and until the 2030 census. These districts were the same as those enacted by the state in October 2021. Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed HB 1000 — establishing state House district boundaries — on June 12, 2023, and he allowed SB 375 — establishing state Senate district boundaries — to become law without his signature on June 18, 2023.

The Texas Tribune's James Barragan wrote in January 2023 that Senate Legislative Redistricting Committee Chairwoman Joan Huffman (R) said the state was re-doing the redistricting process "to ensure that Legislature had met its constitutional requirement to apportion districts in the first regular session after the publishing of the results of the federal census, which is done every 10 years. Because of the pandemic, census numbers were not released until after the end of the last regularly scheduled legislative session on May 31, 2021. Redistricted maps were passed in a subsequent special session that year." Texas had originally enacted new state legislative districts on October 25, 2021.

State Senate map

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Texas’ 2024 state legislative elections.

Texas State Senate Districts
until January 9, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Texas State Senate Districts
starting January 10, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Texas' 2024 state legislative elections.

Texas State House Districts
until January 9, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Texas State House Districts
starting January 10, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State legislative maps enacted in 2021

Texas had originally enacted new state legislative districts on October 25, 2021. After both sets of legislative district maps passed their respective chambers, the House and Senate both approved maps for the other chamber's districts on October 15, 2021. The House approved the Senate map by an 81-60 vote, and the Senate approved the House map by an 18-13 vote. Gov. Abbott signed both maps into law on October 25, 2021.These maps took effect for Texas' 2022 legislative elections.

In a filing for a motion to stay in League of United Latin American Citizens, et al., v. Abbott, et al., in April 2022, legal representatives from the state said, “...article III, section 28 of the Texas Constitution requires that “[t]he Legislature shall, at its first regular session after the publication of each United States decennial census, apportion the state into senatorial and representative districts, agreeable to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of” Article III of the Constitution. In this instance, due to the U.S. Census Bureau’s delays in releasing the necessary data, that first regular session is the 2023 regular session. The State has already acknowledged that while federal law required the State to reapportion sooner than 2023, that does not relieve the State of its obligation to enact redistricting legislation in 2023 as required by its Constitution.”

Reactions to 2021 state legislative maps

Lt. Gov Dan Patrick (R) said of the Senate map: "This map illustrates our commitment to making sure every Texan is well-represented in their state Legislature and their voices are heard." State Rep. Rafael Anchia (D) said the Senate proposal did not adequately reflect the racial composition of the state. “There are nearly three times as many districts that are majority white compared to majority Hispanic,” Anchia said.

State Rep. Todd Hunter (R) said the House map “achieves fair representation for the citizens of Texas.” State Sen. Eddie Lucio (D) criticized revisions to the House districts in the Rio Grande Valley, saying “In my time in the Legislature, I have never seen such blatant disregard for the process.”

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Texas enacted new congressional districts on October 25, 2021. The Senate released a proposed congressional map on September 27, 2021, and approved an amended version of the proposal on October 8, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the House Redistricting Committee approved an amended version of the congressional map, and both chambers of the legislature approved a finalized version of the map on October 18, 2021. The Senate approved the proposal in an 18-13 vote, and the House approved the bill in an 84-59 vote. Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed the map into law on October 25, 2021. This map took effect for Texas' 2022 congressional elections.

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Texas Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Texas Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) said "This map displays our collective commitment to making sure every Texan's voice is heard in Washington, D.C. I want to thank all 31 senators for their hard work, and especially Sen. Huffman for her leadership throughout the redistricting process."

State Sen. Jose Menendez (D) said the proposed map of congressional districts failed to acknowledge that "people of color ... all deserve equal representation." "We cannot continue to govern without addressing the fact that race matters. Race exists. We had 95% growth in minorities, and we have no new minority opportunity districts, and that is simply wrong," Menéndez said.

2020 presidential results

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Texas
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Texas' 1st	26.5%	72.4%	27.2%	71.6%
Texas' 2nd	37.9%	60.7%	48.6%	49.9%
Texas' 3rd	42.0%	56.4%	48.7%	49.8%
Texas' 4th	36.4%	62.4%	24.4%	74.4%
Texas' 5th	38.2%	60.6%	37.9%	60.9%
Texas' 6th	37.4%	61.3%	47.8%	50.8%
Texas' 7th	64.2%	34.5%	53.6%	45.1%
Texas' 8th	35.8%	63.0%	28.1%	70.6%
Texas' 9th	76.2%	22.8%	75.7%	23.3%
Texas' 10th	39.8%	58.6%	48.4%	50.0%
Texas' 11th	29.1%	69.5%	19.7%	79.1%
Texas' 12th	40.1%	58.3%	37.9%	60.5%
Texas' 13th	26.5%	72.0%	19.4%	79.2%
Texas' 14th	35.0%	63.6%	39.6%	59.0%
Texas' 15th	48.1%	51.0%	TX-15: 50.4% TX-34: 51.5%	TX-15: 48.5% TX-34: 47.5%
Texas' 16th	67.0%	31.5%	66.4%	32.0%
Texas' 17th	38.0%	60.5%	43.6%	54.6%
Texas' 18th	73.6%	25.1%	75.7%	23.0%
Texas' 19th	26.2%	72.4%	26.3%	72.2%
Texas' 20th	65.8%	32.7%	63.7%	34.7%
Texas' 21st	39.4%	59.1%	47.9%	50.6%
Texas' 22nd	41.3%	57.4%	48.9%	49.8%
Texas' 23rd	45.8%	52.9%	48.5%	50.3%
Texas' 24th	43.0%	55.4%	51.9%	46.5%
Texas' 25th	33.8%	64.9%	44.4%	54.0%
Texas' 26th	40.0%	58.6%	42.1%	56.3%
Texas' 27th	38.1%	60.6%	37.5%	61.2%
Texas' 28th	52.9%	45.9%	51.6%	47.2%
Texas' 29th	67.8%	31.0%	65.9%	32.9%
Texas' 30th	77.8%	21.0%	79.8%	18.9%
Texas' 31st	39.0%	59.2%	47.6%	50.4%
Texas' 32nd	65.7%	32.7%	54.4%	44.0%
Texas' 33rd	74.2%	24.4%	73.0%	25.6%
Texas' 34th	57.3%	41.8%	TX-15: 50.4% TX-34: 51.5%	TX-15: 48.5% TX-34: 47.5%
Texas' 35th	71.7%	26.5%	---	---
Texas' 36th	33.6%	65.2%	26.9%	71.9%
Texas' 37th	75.5%	22.7%	67.7%	30.5%
Texas' 38th	40.2%	58.4%	---	---

Drafting process

In Texas, both congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the Texas State Legislature. These lines are subject to veto by the governor.

If the state legislature is unable to approve a state legislative redistricting plan, a backup commission must draw the lines (the backup commission is not involved in congressional redistricting). This backup commission, established in 1948, comprises the following members:

1. Lieutenant governor
2. Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives
3. Attorney general
4. State comptroller
5. Commissioner of the General Land Office

The Texas Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and "that they preserve whole counties when population mandates permit."

Timeline of 2021 map adoption

The following timeline represents the projected 2020 redistricting schedule in Texas.

Projected redistricting timeline for Texas, 2020 cycle
Date	Event
April 1, 2020	Census Day
November 3, 2020	Last congressional and state legislative elections held under previous maps
January 12, 2021	87th Legislature convenes
February 2021	Expected delivery of census data to Texas
March 12, 2021	60-day bill filing deadline; includes redistricting bills
May 31, 2021	Legislative Review Board (LRB) assumes responsibility for house and senate plans if bills have not passed or have been vetoed
June 20, 2021	Last day for governor to sign or veto regular session bills
August 12, 2021	Census Bureau releases population data by race and ethnicity
September 1, 2021	RedAppl updated for 2021 redistricting
TBD	Redistricting special session
December 13, 2021	Filing deadline for 2022 primary elections
March 1, 2022	First elections held under new districts

Redistricting committees and/or commissions in 2021

Texas House Legislative Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Member type	Partisan affiliation
Rep. Todd Hunter, Chair	Legislator
Rep. Toni Rose, Vice Chair	Legislator
Rep. Rafael Anchia	Legislator
Rep. Craig Goldman	Legislator
Rep. Ryan Guillen	Legislator
Rep. Jacey Jetton	Legislator
Rep. Brooks Landgraf	Legislator
Rep. Ina Minjarez	Legislator
Rep. Joe Moody	Legislator
Rep. Geanie Morrison	Legislator
Rep. Andrew S. Murr	Legislator
Rep. Mike Schofield	Legislator
Rep. Senfronia Thompson	Legislator
Rep. Chris Turner	Legislator
Rep. James White	Legislator

Texas Senate Legislative Redistricting Committee membership, 2020 cycle
Name	Member type	Partisan affiliation
Joan Huffman (R), Chair	Legislator
Juan Hinojosa , Vice chair	Legislator
Carol Alvarado	Legislator
Paul Bettencourt	Legislator
Brian Birdwell	Legislator
Dawn Buckingham	Legislator
Donna Campbell	Legislator
Kelly Hancock	Legislator
Bryan Hughes	Legislator
Nathan Johnson	Legislator
Eddie Lucio	Legislator
Jose Menendez	Legislator
Robert Nichols	Legislator
Angela Paxton	Legislator
Charles Perry	Legislator
Royce West	Legislator
John Whitmire	Legislator

Pre-drafting developments

On September 7, 2021, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) announced a third special legislative session beginning on September 20 that will focus on redistricting. "The Texas Legislature now has the opportunity to redraw legislative and congressional districts in accordance with the new census numbers," Abbott said.

The Senate Special Committee on Redistricting and the House Redistricting Committee held hearings from September 7-18, 2021. Click here to see the dates, times, and locations of these meetings.

On August 31, 2021, Texas Legislature approved Senate Bill 13, a bill that would delay 2022 primary elections in the state based on when redistricting is completed. Filing dates for primary candidates and primary election dates would also be affected. Click here to read the text of the bill.

Drafts and proposals

Legislative maps

The Senate Redistricting Committee released a draft of a Senate legislative map on September 18, 2021. A Senate panel advanced the proposal to the full Senate for debate on September 28, 2021. The Senate approved an amended version in a 20-11 vote on October 4, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the full House approved an amended version of the map introduced on September 30 with a vote evenly split along party lines.

The House and Senate approved maps for each other's districts on October 15, 2021. The House approved the Senate map by an 81-60 vote, and the Senate approved the House map by an 18-13 vote. Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed both maps into law on October 25, 2021.

Map images

The approved House map can be viewed by clicking the link below. Click here to see images of all maps considered by the House.

• House Redistricting map

The approved Senate map can be viewed by clicking the link below. Click here to see images of all maps considered by the Senate.

• Senate Redistricting map

Congressional maps

The Senate released a congressional map proposed by Sen. Joan Huffman (R) on September 27, 2021 and approved an amended version of the map on October 08, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the House Redistricting Committee approved a version of the map. The legislature approved a finalized version of the map on October 18, 2021. The Senate approved the bill in an 18-13 vote and the House approved it in an 84-59 vote. Gov. Abbott signed the map into law on October 25, 2021.

Map images

Click the link below to see an image of the approved congressional district map. Click here to view all maps considered by the House and Senate

• Congressional district map

Apportionment and release of census data

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Texas was apportioned 38 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net gain of two seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Texas
State	2010 census		2020 census		2010-2020
	Population	U.S. House seats	Population	U.S. House seats	Raw change in population	Percentage change in population	Change in U.S. House seats
Texas	25,268,418	36	29,183,290	38	3,914,872	15.49%	2

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021. The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.

Court challenges

U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Texas on December 6, 2021, saying the state’s newly enacted congressional and legislative maps violate the Voting Rights Act by failing to account for the growth of Latino and Black populations. “The Legislature refused to recognize the state’s growing minority electorate,” the complaint said. “Although the Texas congressional delegation expanded from 36 to 38 seats, Texas designed the two new seats to have Anglo voting majorities.”

In a press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland said "The complaint we filed today alleges that Texas has violated Section Two by creating redistricting plans that deny or bridge the rights of Latino and Black voters to vote on account of their race, color or membership in a language-minority group." Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said "our investigation determined that Texas' redistricting plans will dilute the increased minority voting strength that should have developed from these significant demographic shifts."

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said the lawsuit was the "Biden Administration's latest ploy to control Texas voters" and he was “confident that our legislature's redistricting decisions will be proven lawful, and this preposterous attempt to sway democracy will fail." Renae Eze, a spokeswoman for Gov. Greg Abbott (R), said, “It’s no surprise that Democrats in Washington are attacking our state’s redistricting plans. We are confident that Texas’ redistricting plans will be upheld by the courts, and our office continues working with the Office of the Attorney General to ensure Texans are represented fairly.”

The Department of Justice withdrew its claims against the state's maps on March 6, 2025, but litigation continued with other groups maintaining their challenges against the maps in consolidated cases. A trial was tentatively scheduled for May 2025.

November 16, 2021, lawsuit

On November 16, 2021, several civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas, Our Vote Texas, and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ), filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Secretary of State John Scott (R) alleging the congressional map enacted by the state is racially discriminatory. The plaintiffs argued that the legislature "refused to create minority opportunity districts required by the Voting Rights Act," and asked the court to "develop redistricting plans that do not dilute minority voting strength for the Texas House and Senate and the United States Congress."

November 2, 2021, lawsuits

On November 2, 2021, Texas Democratic lawmakers filed three separate lawsuits seeking to overturn the enacted redistricting maps. Two were filed by the Texas House Mexican American Legislative Caucus, one in federal court and other in state court, and State Sen. Beverly Powell (D) along with six Tarrant County voters filed a federal lawsuit.

Mexican American Legislative Caucus lawsuits

The 41-member Texas House Mexican American Legislative Caucus filed a lawsuit against the state with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in which the caucus members said the newly enacted maps "discriminate on the basis of race and impermissibly dilute the vote of Latino populations." The complaint said that the maps " strategically pair areas which grapple with low turnout rates, as a result of historical and current socio-economic conditions, barriers to participation, and discrimination, with areas that have extremely high and extremely polarized Anglo bloc voting to create districts that are nominally majority-minority but do not perform to elect candidates of choice for minority voters."

The caucus also filed a state court lawsuit in Travis County arguing that Texas House districts were drawn in violation of Article 3 of the Texas Constitution. In the complaint, the caucus members argued "The county line rule generally requires that state representative districts must either be made up of entire counties or wholly contained within the boundaries of a single county," and said the new House maps violate this rule because "HB 1 on its face violates the express, plain language of the county line rule by splitting the Cameron County line twice, extending in two different directions into two different contiguous counties to form two distinct state representative districts: House Districts 35 and 37.

Powell lawsuit

Sen. Powell and six Tarrant County voters filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in which they said the new Senate map involved a "racially discriminatory scheme to dismantle Senate District 10 (“SD10”) as a performing crossover district for Tarrant County’s minority voters that a federal court declared intentionally discriminatory last decade." In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that "the mapdrawers acted with racially discriminatory intent in drawing Plan S2168, which cracks apart Tarrant County’s Black, Latino, and Asian voters and submerges them in Anglo-dominated districts in which they will have no opportunity to elect their preferred candidates."

Voto Latino lawsuit

On October 25, 2021, Voto Latino, a Latino civil rights group, and 13 Texas voters filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas asking the court to overturn the state's redrawn congressional districts, saying that the new maps dilute the voting power of non-white voters. The suit argued that although people of color accounted for the majority of Texas' population growth, which gained the state two additional congressional districts, "Senate Bill 6 appropriates those additional districts — and more — for white Texans. Senate Bill 6 does so by packing and cracking communities of color along racial lines to ensure that those groups’ growing populations will not translate to increased political influence."

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.

“	The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.	”
—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review." Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1. The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution. On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Trifectas and redistricting

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.

The 12 legislature-redistricting states that saw trifecta shifts in 2010 – subsequent trifecta status
State	Primary redistricting authority	Pre-2010 trifecta status	Post-2010 trifecta status	Post-2018 trifecta status
Alabama	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Republican
Colorado	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Democratic	Divided	Democratic
Indiana	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Republican
Iowa	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Republican
Maine	Legislature	Democratic	Republican	Democratic
Michigan	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Divided
New Hampshire	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Divided
North Carolina	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Divided
Ohio	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Divided	Republican	Republican
Oregon	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Democratic
Pennsylvania	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Divided	Republican	Divided
Wisconsin	Legislature	Democratic	Republican	Divided

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in Texas after the 2010 census

Texas' congressional and state legislative district maps that were drawn after the 2010 census were subject to litigation. On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a district court decision striking down several congressional and state legislative district maps as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders (the high court upheld the district court's finding of racial gerrymandering with respect to one state House district). Click here to learn more.

See also

• Redistricting in Texas after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in Texas
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"