Redistricting in Texas

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

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Texas' 38 United States Representatives and 181 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Texas was apportioned 38 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, two more than it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Texas after the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS

Following the 2020 United States Census, Texas was apportioned 38 congressional districts, two more than the number it had after the 2010 census.

Texas' House of Representatives is made up of 150 districts; Texas' State Senate is made up of 31 districts.

In Texas, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the state legislature. If the legislature fails to approve a state legislative redistricting plan, a backup commission must draw the lines (the backup commission is not involved in congressional redistricting).

Texas' congressional and state legislative district maps that were drawn after the 2010 census have been 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.

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.

Texas enacted new 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 Chairperson 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 on maps enacted after the 2020 census.<be>

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

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Texas
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Texas
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Texas' redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

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 independent 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

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.

Race and ethnicity

See also: Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

“	No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.	”
—Voting Rights Act of 1965

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Texas was home to 18 congressional majority-minority districts.

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.

State process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

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."

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

See also: How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Texas, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in.

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Texas

Texas comprises 38 congressional districts. The table below lists Texas' current U.S. Representatives.

Office	Name	Party	Date assumed office	Date term ends
U.S. House Texas District 1	Nathaniel Moran	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 2	Daniel Crenshaw	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 3	Keith Self	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 4	Pat Fallon	Republican	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 5	Lance Gooden	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 6	Jake Ellzey	Republican	July 30, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 7	Lizzie Pannill Fletcher	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 8	Morgan Luttrell	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 9	Al Green	Democratic	January 3, 2005	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 10	Michael McCaul	Republican	January 3, 2005	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 11	August Pfluger	Republican	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 12	Kay Granger	Republican	January 3, 1997	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 13	Ronny L. Jackson	Republican	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 14	Randy Weber	Republican	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 15	Monica De La Cruz	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 16	Veronica Escobar	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 17	Pete Sessions	Republican	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 18	Sheila Jackson Lee	Democratic	January 3, 1995	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 19	Jodey Arrington	Republican	January 3, 2017	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 20	Joaquin Castro	Democratic	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 21	Chip Roy	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 22	Troy Nehls	Republican	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 23	Tony Gonzales	Republican	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 24	Beth Van Duyne	Republican	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 25	Roger Williams	Republican	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 26	Michael C. Burgess	Republican	January 3, 2003	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 27	Michael Cloud	Republican	July 10, 2018	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 28	Henry Cuellar	Democratic	January 3, 2005	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 29	Sylvia Garcia	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 30	Jasmine Crockett	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 31	John Carter	Republican	January 3, 2003	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 32	Colin Allred	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 33	Marc Veasey	Democratic	January 3, 2013	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 34	Vicente Gonzalez Jr.	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 35	Greg Casar	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 36	Brian Babin	Republican	January 3, 2015	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 37	Lloyd Doggett	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Texas District 38	Wesley Hunt	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025

State legislative maps

See also: Texas State Senate and Texas House of Representatives

Texas comprises 31 state Senate districts and 150 state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.”

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

See also: Redistricting in Texas after the 2020 census

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.

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%	---	---

Enacted state legislative district maps

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

Texas enacted new 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 Chairperson 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.

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.”

State Senate map

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

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.

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.

Reactions

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.”

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in Texas after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Texas gained four congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the Texas State Legislature and the governorship. The legislature approved a state legislative redistricting plan on May 23, 2011, which was signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on June 17, 2011. On June 24, 2011, the legislature approved a congressional redistricting plan, which was signed into law by the governor on July 18, 2011.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott petitioned a three-judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., for preclearance of the redistricting plans. At the time, certain states were required under the Voting Rights Act to receive preclearance from the federal government before implementing modifications to election laws (including redistricting plans). On September 29, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas "halted the [state House and congressional maps'] implementation and announced its intent to draw its own interim plan if the state did not obtain federal preclearance before the December 2011 opening of the candidate filing period." On November 8, 2011, the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals denied Abbott's request for an expedited decision, thereby setting the stage for a trial. On November 23, 2011, the San Antonio federal court issued its own interim congressional and state legislative district maps, which were intended to apply to the 2012 elections. Abbott appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which ordered a stay of the San Antonio court's ruling, effectively forcing Texas to delay its primary until May.

In January 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the interim maps drawn by the district court, ruling that the court had exceeded its authority. On February 28, 2012, the district court issued a second set of interim district maps.

On August 28, 2012, the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals panel refused to grant preclearance to the original maps. On June 25, 2013, however, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively removed the preclearance mechanism from the Voting Rights Act. As a result, the earlier refusal to preclear Texas' maps was vacated.

On June 21, 2013, the state legislature approved permanent congressional and state legislative redistricting plans. These new maps resembled the second interim maps issued by the district court. On June 26, 2013, Gov. Perry signed the maps into law.

On November 6, 2015, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered that the state's existing district maps remain in place for the 2016 election cycle. The court, however, stopped short of issuing a final decision:

“	The Court has been working diligently and has made substantial progress toward resolution of the claims on the 2011 plans; however, it has not yet reached a final decision. Trial on the merits of the claims against the 2013 plans has not been scheduled, and legal challenges to the 2013 plans will not be resolved before the 2016 election cycle. ... [The] Court must balance the need to protect voting rights that may be affected by the 2013 plans with the need to avoid the adverse effect on voting rights that comes with delay and confusion during election time. If the Court enjoined the 2013 enacted plans and imposed yet another set of interim plans for the 2016 election, the shifting district and precinct lines would leave candidates in limbo, voters confused, and election officials with the burden of implementing new maps in a timely manner with very limited resources. It would be extremely difficult to implement new interim plans without tremendous interruption to the 2016 election schedule.	”
—United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

On March 10, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled that some of the congressional district boundaries adopted by the state legislature in 2011 had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent. The court ruled 2-1 on the matter. The ruling did not apply to the remedial districts adopted in 2013.

On April 20, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled that some of the state house district boundaries adopted by the state legislature in 2011 had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent. The court ruled 2-1 on the matter. The decision did not apply to the remedial districts adopted in 2013.

On July 10, 2017, a federal trial addressing the constitutionality of the district maps adopted by the legislature in 2013 began, with Judges Orlando Garcia and Xavier Rodriguez (both of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas) and Judge Jerry Smith (of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit) presiding. The maps' opponents alleged that the 2013 maps, like the original maps adopted in the wake of the 2010 United States Census, unconstitutionally diluted the voting rights of racial minority groups. State officials denied this, maintaining that the 2013 maps were substantially the same as those issued by a federal court in 2012. The trial continued through July 15, 2017.

On August 15, 2017, Judges Smith, Garcia, and Rodriguez issued a unanimous ruling finding that the 2013 maps for congressional districts 27 and 35 had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent on the part of the legislature. The judges ordered state officials to inform the court within three days of the state legislature's intent to draft and implement new remedial maps. State Representative Rafael Anchia (D), chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (a plaintiff in the case), supported the ruling: "Intentional discrimination is a bad habit for the Texas Legislature. With the seventh ruling of intentional discrimination since 2011, a federal court confirmed today that Texas congressional maps remain unconstitutional." In a statement, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced his plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States: "We appreciate that the panel ruled in favor of Texas on many issues in the case. But the portion of the ruling that went against Texas is puzzling considering the Legislature adopted the congressional map the same court itself adopted in 2012, and the Obama-era Department of Justice did not bring any claims against the map. We look forward to asking the Supreme Court to decide whether Texas had discriminatory intent when relying on the district court."

On August 17, 2017, Paxton announced that he had initiated an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. Paxton requested that the high court stay the lower court's ruling pending full review of the case.

On August 24, 2017, Judges Smith, Garcia, and Rodriguez issued a unanimous ruling finding that the 2013 maps for the following state House districts had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent on the part of the legislature:

1. Districts 103, 104, and 105 in Dallas County
2. Districts 32 and 34 in Nueces County
3. Districts 54 and 55 in Bell County
4. Districts 90 and 93 in Tarrant County

Paxton announced that he intended to appeal the decision.

On August 28, 2017, Associate Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court of the United States stayed the district court's August 15 ruling on Texas' congressional district plan pending further review by the high court. On August 31, 2017, Alito issued a similar order on the district court's August 24 ruling on Texas' state House district plan. On September 12, 2017, the high court voted 5-4 to implement a full stay against both rulings pending progression of the state's appeal. According to The New York Times, the high court's order made it more likely that the 2018 election would be held using the existing district plans. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch formed the majority. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer dissented. On January 12, 2018, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case, with oral argument scheduled for April 24, 2018. In March 2018, United States Solicitor General Noel Francisco requested that court permit him, on behalf of the federal government, to argue in support of Texas during oral argument on April 24, 2018.

On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5-4 ruling reversing the decision of the district court with respect to all challenged districts except House District 90. Associate Justice Samuel Alito penned the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. For more information on the court's decision, see here.

On August 30, 2018, the district court ordered the state legislature to adopt a remedial plan for House District 90 no later than within 45 days of the start of the 2019 regular legislative session. On May 28, 2019, the court approved a remedial plan for House District 90.

On July 24, 2019, the district court declined to subject the state to a federal preclearance remedy that would have required state lawmakers to obtain approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before enacting changes to the state's election laws and procedures, including implementation of redistricting plans. The court wrote the following in its opinion: "[The] Court has grave concerns about Texas' past conduct. During the 2011 legislative session, Texas engaged in traditional means of vote dilution such as cracking and packing in drawing districts, and also utilized newer methods of dilution and suppression such as using the 'nudge factor' and passing voter ID requirements. ... Nevertheless, the Court concludes that ordering preclearance on the current record would be inappropriate, given the recent guidance from the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit. It is time for this round of litigation to close."

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

See state election laws

The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Texas state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Redistricting ballot measures

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Texas ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Texas.

1. Texas Proposition 1, County Justice and Commissioner Precincts Amendment (1908)
2. Texas Proposition 2, Apportionment of County Representatives Amendment (1936)
3. Texas Proposition 2, Legislative Redistricting Board Amendment (1948)
4. Texas Proposition 13, Reapportionment of Judicial Districts Amendment (1985)
5. Texas Proposition 1, Legislative Apportionment Amendment (September 1965)

Political impacts of redistricting

Competitiveness

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

In Texas, there were four competitive races for the Texas House of Representatives in 2012, compared to 12 in 2010. There were five mildly competitive House races in 2012, compared to seven in 2010. This amounted to a net loss of 10 competitive elections.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Texas. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Redistricting in Texas - Google News

See also

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in Texas after the 2010 census
• Redistricting
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts
• State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

External links

• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"