Redistricting in Texas after the 2010 census

Note: Redistricting takes place every 10 years after completion of the United States Census. The information here pertains to the 2010 redistricting process. For information on more recent redistricting developments, see this article.

Redistricting in Texas

General information

Partisan control: Republican

Process: State legislature first, commission as backup

Deadline: October 26, 2011

Total seats

Congress: 36

State Senate: 31

State House: 150

This article details the timeline of redistricting events in Texas following the 2010 census. It also provides contextual information about the redistricting process and census information.

Process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

Redistricting in Texas was controlled by the Texas State Legislature. Once the state received data from the U.S. Census Bureau, both houses of the legislature introduced bills to redraw the state legislative and congressional boundaries. If the legislature failed to approve a redistricting plan, the state constitution required a state redistricting board to be formed to complete the plan. Any plan created by a commission or a legislature had to receive preclearance from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This is consistent with the Voting Rights Act.

The Texas Constitution provided authority to the Legislature for redistricting in Section 28 of Article 3. If the Legislature failed to meet its deadline, Section 28 provided authority for the creation of the Legislative Redistricting Board of Texas.

Legislative Redistricting Board

The Legislative Redistricting Board was composed of the lieutenant governor, speaker of the house, land commissioner, comptroller, and attorney general. Its purpose was to step in and develop a redistricting plan in the event the legislature failed to pass a plan of its own (House, Senate, or both) by the end of the first regular legislative session following the release of U.S. Census reapportionment data. By order of the Texas Constitution, the board had to meet within 90 days of the session in which a redistricting plan was not passed, and adopt a plan within 60 days of meeting.

Citizen Redistricting Commission

The Texas State Senate passed a bill (SB22) on June 22, 2011, that would create a citizen redistricting commission. Acknowledging what he described as the impossibility of removing partisanship from the redistricting process, Senator Jeff Wentworth sponsored the commission bill with the declared aim of making the process fairer and less politically charged. SB22 passed the senate but failed to make it out of the house. The Senate passed similar bills in 2005 and 2007; both times the bills were defeated in the House.

Leadership

Senate Redistricting Committee

Lt. Governor David Dewhurst announced the makeup of Senate committees on Friday January 28, 2011, including the Select Committee on Redistricting. Republican Kel Seliger chaired the committee. Democrat Mario Gallegos was appointed as vice-chair. The committee's members were as follows:

Republicans (8)

• Kevin Eltife (R) Chair
• John Carona (R)
• Craig Estes (R)
• Troy Fraser (R)
• Joan Huffman (R)
• Dan Patrick (R)
• Jeff Wentworth (R)
• Tommy Williams (R)

Democrats (6)

• Mario Gallegos (D) Vice Chair
• Juan Hinojosa (D)
• Eddie Lucio (D)
• Carlos Uresti (D)
• Royce West (D)
• Judith Zaffirini (D)

Tarrant County officials publicly announced concern over not being represented on the redistricting committee. Tarrant, home to the city of Fort Worth, is the third most populous county in Texas. County Judge Glen Whitley commented, "They covered every major county except Tarrant County. We're the third-largest county in the state and for us not to have anybody on there, it's just not right." Lt. Governor Dewhurst responded that he would ensure Tarrant's three senators would be involved in the redistricting process. "Right now, we've got 15 people on redistricting, and there's a limit to how many people we can put on any one committee. Almost everybody in the Senate had wanted to be on redistricting," noted Dewhurst.

The Senate Redistricting Committee held its first hearing on February 16, 2011.

House Redistricting Committee

Texas House Speaker Straus announced House committee assignments on February 9, 2011—among them, the Committee on Redistricting. Republican Burt Solomons received the chairmanship. Democrat Michael Villarreal was appointed vice-chair. Of the remaining 15 members, four were Democrats and 11 were Republicans:

Republicans (12)

• Burt Solomons (R) Chair
• Jimmie Don Aycock (R)
• Dan Branch (R)
• Rob Eissler (R)
• Charlie Geren (R)
• Patricia Harless (R)
• Harvey Hilderbran (R)
• Todd Hunter (R)
• Jim Keffer (R)
• Jerry Madden (R)
• Aaron Pena (R)
• Larry Phillips (R)

Democrats (5)

• Mike Villarreal (D) Vice Chair
• Roberto Alonzo (D)
• Carol Alvarado (D)
• Joe Pickett (D)
• Marc Veasey (D)

Census results

According to 2010 census reapportionment data, Texas gained four congressional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in that round of decennial redistricting, more than any other state in the nation. The new seats came as a result of significant population growth in Texas over the previous decade. Texas grew 20.6 percent from 2000 to 2010, more than double the 9.7 percent national growth over the same period. Hispanics accounted for the largest portion of Texas' growth. Conservative estimates showed Hispanics accounting for approximately two-thirds of the state's nearly four million new residents. While the increase of new Texans clearly meant more representation in Congress, the shape that representation would take remained uncertain until the redistricting was finalized.

Texas United Way discusses 2011 redistricting

Congressional district population deviations

With the release of 2010 reapportionment data, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that Texas would gain four seats in the House of Representatives, bringing the Texas delegation to 36 total seats. The census data also reported that the average number of people per representative should be 701,901, to ensure equal representation in accordance with the one-person, one-vote principle. The following table uses 2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data to display the estimated population in the existing 32 districts at the time, as well as the difference between the population of those districts and the target of 701,901 when they were redrawn to include the four new seats. These deviations lent insight into the areas of Texas that would expand or shrink in the redistricting process.

Population deviations in Texas Congressional districts
District	2009 ACS estimate	Deviation	Percentage
1	710,414	8,513	1.2%
2	749,676	47,775	6.8%
3	872,895	170,994	24.4%
4	818,462	116,561	16.6%
5	723,374	21,473	3.1%
6	805,442	103,541	14.8%
7	786,667	84,766	12.1%
8	808,773	106,872	15.2%
9	738,166	36,265	5.2%
10	943,301	241,400	34.4%
11	693,432	(8,469)	-1.2%
12	820,289	118,388	16.9%
13	657,065	(44,836)	-6.4%
14	760,299	58,398	8.3%
15	768,767	66,866	9.5%
16	713,169	11,268	1.6%
17	749,966	48,065	6.8%
18	740,571	38,670	5.5%
19	679,701	(22,200)	-3.2%
20	700,692	(1,209)	-0.2%
21	837,900	135,999	19.4%
22	895,488	193,587	27.6%
23	804,574	102,673	14.6%
24	791,663	89,762	12.8%
25	810,390	108,489	15.5%
26	907,036	205,135	29.2%
27	714,243	12,342	1.8%
28	817,105	115,204	16.4%
29	675,095	(26,806)	-3.8%
30	752,686	50,785	7.2%
31	857,673	155,772	22.2%
32	677,328	(24,573)	-3.5%

Deviation from ideal districts

2000 population deviation
Office		Percentage
Congressional districts		0.00%
State house districts		9.74%
State senate districts		9.7%1
Under federal law, districts could vary from an ideal district by up to 10 percent, although the lowest number achievable was preferred. Ideal districts were computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the census.

Population change

The map below was produced by the Texas Legislative Council to show population change in Texas from 2000 to 2010. The map compared the population changes in the districts to the statewide rate of change, highlighting pockets of growth and decline. This type of information was important for redistricting because it allowed those drawing the lines to do so in a way that resulted in an equitable and representative fashion, upholding the one person, one vote principle. Orange shaded areas represented districts that grew less than the state rate. Yellow shaded areas were districts that grew roughly the same as the state as a whole. Green areas were districts that outgrew the state as a whole.

Congressional redistricting

In September 2011, a group of Texas Democrats led by Senator Wendy Davis, filed suit against Governor Rick Perry (R) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, arguing that he violated the one person, one vote principle by signing the legislature's redistricting map. In response, the court implemented newly drawn maps for the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas State Senate, and the Texas congressional delegation. It did so in order for the 2012 elections to proceed without further delay, after a D.C.-based court rejected Texas' maps on grounds they violated the Voting Rights Act. The maps increased minority voting power. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) attempted to block the plans by requesting emergency stays from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Texas attorney general filed a request on November 28, 2011, asking the high court to halt implementation of the interim State House and State Senate plans. He filed a similar request for Texas' congressional map on December 1, 2011. The Supreme Court answered the Texas attorney general on Friday December 9, temporarily halting the court-drawn maps until it could hear the case.

State approval process

May 2011: Special session called

Figure 1: The U.S. Congressional Redistricting map as introduced on June 1, 2011.

The 82 Legislative Session came to a close on May 30, 2011. On May 31, 2011, Governor Perry called an immediate special session. In addition to balancing the budget, Perry put congressional redistricting on the agenda. While redistricting maps were passed for the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas State Senate, and the State Board of Education, the legislature failed to pass a congressional map within the regular session.

After redistricting was added to the special session agenda, legislators released a congressional redistricting map (See Figure 1). Senator Kel Seliger, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting, and Representative Burt Solomons, Chairman of the Committee on Redistricting, sponsored the map. Democrats opposed the Republican plan, saying it did not give enough representation to minorities, calling the map illegal. Congressional redistricting hearings began June 3, 2011.

June 2011: Redistricting hearings began

On June 6, 2011 the Texas State Senate passed the congressional redistricting map in an 18-12 vote that went directly down party lines. Democrats said the map did not provide adequate minority representation and that it violated the Voting Rights Act. Democratic Senator Eddie Lucio of Brownsville said "How is it fair that although Anglos only make up 45 percent of our population, but they control 72 percent of our congressional districts. It does not make any sense; it is unfair." Senator Kel Seliger (R), Senate Redistricting Committee Chair, defended the map saying "This process continues to be driven by the fairness of the process, and the legality."

The House Committee on Redistricting passed a slightly altered version of the congressional map on June 9, 2011. From there it was to be voted on by the full House. Democratic opponents said the changes to the House map further diluted Hispanic voting power in areas such as San Antonio and Fort Worth.

The Texas House of Representatives gave final approval to the U.S. congressional redistricting map on June 15, 2011. The bill was a slightly amended version of the plan previously passed by the Senate. Speaker of the House Joe Straus (R) commented, “I am particularly pleased that we have passed all four redistricting maps required this year. The members provided much input and direction on maps that reflect the population changes in our state.”

The congressional redistricting plan passed the Senate on June 20, 2011, in a 19-12 straight party vote. From there, the congressional map was sent to Governor Perry. He signed the redistricting map into law on July 18, 2011.

The state-approved congressional map was immediately challenged in two federal court cases, one in San Antonio and one in D.C.

July 2011: Federal approval process

Attorney General Greg Abbott submitted Texas' congressional map, along with the state’s other redistricting maps, to a panel of three federal judges in Washington, D.C. on July 19, 2011. Texas was among the states that had to submit their redistricting plans to the federal government for approval under the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The standard route for obtaining federal approval was for states to submit their plans to the Voting Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ); this was the route Texas had taken in the past. But political tension between Texas and the Obama administration's DOJ led state leaders to circumvent the traditional route in the 2011 cycle. After filing the plans with the federal judges, Attorney General Abbot informally submitted the maps to the DOJ for preclearance. Abbott said filing the maps with the DOJ was "to facilitate and expedite disposition of this matter."

September 2011: Department of Justice denied preclearance

On September 19, 2011 the DOJ filed a response with the D.C. federal court that turned down Texas' request for preclearance, arguing that the state's congressional and State Assembly maps violated the Voting Rights Act.

November 2011: D.C. federal court rejected map

The D.C. federal court rejected Texas' congressional map on November 8, 2011, denying the state's request for a preclearance summary judgment. The three-judge panel said that the methods used by the state to draw state house, state senate, and congressional maps were improper and in violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The preclearance denial meant the court would have to undergo a lengthy trial to reach a full decision on Texas' maps. This fact made interim maps a must in order to minimize delays to the 2012 elections.

December 2011: San Antonio federal court interim maps

In December 2011, the San Antonio federal court hearing Texas' consolidated redistricting case implemented their own interim maps (including a congressional map) to be used for the 2012 elections. The court-drawn maps were a temporary solution while awaiting a decision from the D.C. court, and ultimately a solution to how the state's political boundaries would be established. The maps increased minority voting power. Texas Republicans objected. Texas Attorney General Abbott was critical of the court's maps, saying the court was overreaching and creating policy instead of upholding the law. Abbott attempted to block the plans by requesting emergency stays from the U. S. Supreme Court. The attorney general filed a request on December 1 asking the high court to halt implementation of the interim map for U.S. House of Representatives 2012 elections in Texas.

The Supreme Court answered the Texas attorney general on December 9, 2011, temporarily halting the court-drawn maps until it could hear the case. Then on January 20, 2012, the court ruled that the interim maps (including the congressional map) that had been put in place by the San Antonio federal court could not stand, and sent the maps back to the lower court for redrawing. The Supreme Court said that redistricting was primarily a legislative responsibility, and that the San Antonio court didn't give enough credence to the maps drawn by the Texas state legislature. The ruling ordered the San Antonio court to use the legislative maps as a starting point for redrawing the boundaries.

Legislative redistricting

In late 2011, a federal court implemented newly drawn maps for the Texas House of Representatives, the Texas State Senate, and Texas' congressional delegation. The San Antonio court had to draw interim maps in order for the 2012 elections to proceed without further delay after a D.C.-based court rejected Texas' maps on the grounds that they violated the Voting Rights Act. The maps increase minority voting power. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) attempted to block the plans by requesting emergency stays from the United States Supreme Court. The Attorney General filed a request on November 28th, 2011 asking the high court to halt implementation of the interim State House and State Senate plans. He filed a similar request for Texas' congressional map on December 1st, 2011. The Supreme Court answered the Texas Attorney General on Friday December 9th, 2011, temporarily halting the court-drawn maps until it could hear the case.

May 2011: Legislative approval process

Texas State Senate

The Texas State Senate released a proposed map of its 31 districts on May 11, 2011. Democrats criticized the Senate map for underrepresenting minorities. Perhaps even more unpopular was the redrawing of existing districts, which would dilute the power of some incumbents and pit others against each other in the next election. Travis County, which included the capital city of Austin, went from being divided by two Senate districts to four. The maps' opponents said they would challenge them in the courts.

The Senate redistricting plan passed the Texas Legislature on May 21, 2011 and was subsequently signed by Governor Rick Perry.

May 2011: Texas House of Representatives

After sixteen hours of debate on April 28, 2011, the Texas House of Representatives came to a tentative decision on a new map of its 150 political districts. Republican Rep. Burt Solomons, Chairman of the House Redistricting Committee, headed the contentious discussions. Various groups proposed amendments, mostly to further the political interests of specific minority groups.

Ultimately the map was passed in a 92-52 vote. Ten Republicans voted against the map and three Democrats voted in favor.

The House Redistricting Committee first released the map proposing new lines for the Texas House of Representatives on April 13, 2011. Representative Burt Solomons , Chairman of the Committee, announced "The map we are proposing is a fair and legal map that represents the people of Texas and our growth over the last 10 years." Latinos, who were responsible for the largest portion of Texas' population growth, got one new district. 16 incumbents would find themselves competing against each other in 2012, after having their districts paired under the new map. As expected due to population growth patterns, rural areas such as East Texas and the Western Panhandle are lost representation to more urban areas such as Dallas and San Antonio.

The House redistricting plan passed the Texas Legislature on May 21, 2011 and was subsequently signed by Governor Rick Perry.

May 2011: State Board of Education

The House approved a map for the 15-member State Board of the Education (SBOE) on May 4th. The vote was 80-61. The map passed the Senate on April 29th, 2011 and was sent to be signed into law by Governor Rick Perry. The map's opponents said that minorities did not receive enough representation.

The House Redistricting Committee approved the map for the 15-member State Board of the Education (SBOE) on April 1, 2011. The SBOE map was the first map approved by either chamber's redistricting committee in the 2011 Texas redistricting cycle. "The map was approved Friday on a 12-4 vote. Rep. Carol Alvarado, D-Houston, said she voted against the newly proposed boundaries because she thought lawmakers could craft an alternative that would give Hispanics a bigger voice on the board. Rep. Burt Solomons, the North Texas Republican who chairs the committee, said he thought it was a fair map."

July 2011: Federal approval process

Attorney General Greg Abbott submitted Texas' redistricting maps, to a panel of three federal judges in Washington DC on July 19, 2011. Texas was among the states that had to submit their redistricting plans to the federal government for approval under the auspices of the Voting Rights Act. The standard route for obtaining federal approval was for states to submit their plans to the Voting Rights Division of the Department of Justice; this was the route Texas had taken in the past. But political tension between Texas and the Obama administration's DOJ led state leaders to circumvent the traditional route in the 2011 cycle. After filing the plans with the federal judges, Attorney General Abbot then informally submitted the maps to the DOJ for preclearance. Abbott said filing the maps with the DOJ was "to facilitate and expedite disposition of this matter."

September 2011: Department of Justice filed response

On September 19, 2011 the Department of Justice filed a response with the DC federal court rejecting Texas' request for preclearance, arguing that the state's congressional and State Assembly maps violated the Voting Rights Act.

November 2011: D.C. federal court responded

The DC federal court rejected Texas' senate and house maps on November 8, 2011, denying the state's request for preclearance summary judgment. The three-judge panel said that the methods used by the state to draw state house, state senate, and congressional maps were improper and in violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The preclearance denial meant the court would have to undergo a trial to reach a full decision on Texas' maps. This fact made interim maps a must in order to minimize delays to the 2012 elections.

December 2011: San Antonio federal court interim maps

In December 2011, the San Antonio federal court hearing Texas' consolidated redistricting case implemented their own interim maps (including a congressional map) to be used for the 2012 elections. The court-drawn maps were a temporary solution while awaiting a decision from the D.C. court, and ultimately a solution to how the state's political boundaries would be established. The maps increased minority voting power. Texas Republicans objected. Texas Attorney General Abbott was critical of the court's maps, saying the court was overreaching and creating policy instead of upholding the law. Abbott attempted to block the plans by requesting emergency stays from the U. S. Supreme Court. The attorney general filed a request on December 1 asking the high court to halt implementation of the interim map for U.S. House of Representatives 2012 elections in Texas.

The Supreme Court answered the Texas attorney general on December 9, 2011, temporarily halting the court-drawn maps until it could hear the case. Then on January 20, 2012, the court ruled that the interim maps (including the congressional map) that had been put in place by the San Antonio federal court could not stand, and sent the maps back to the lower court for redrawing. The Supreme Court said that redistricting was primarily a legislative responsibility, and that the San Antonio court didn't give enough credence to the maps drawn by the Texas state legislature. The ruling ordered the San Antonio court to use the legislative maps as a starting point for redrawing the boundaries.

June 2013: Special session

The Texas House of Representatives approved new district maps during a special session. The maps passed the Texas State Senate and were signed into law by Governor Rick Perry (R). Although challenged in court, a panel of judges ruled that there was no basis to block the maps and ordered they be used for the 2014 election cycle.

Legal issues

More than 12 lawsuits targeting redistricting surfaced in Texas - two dealing with 2010 Census Hispanic figures—one addressing the counting of prisoners and one over the failure of the Texas Legislature to produce a congressional map in the regular session.

July 2011: Consolidation of three lawsuits

San Antonio federal judge Orlando Garcia consolidated three of Texas' redistricting lawsuits on July 6, 2011. The three suits - one filed by a legislator, one filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, and one by the League of United Latin American Citizens - all centered around claims that the redistricting plans passed by the Texas State Legislature did not give proportional representation to minorities. The consolidated case commenced on September 6, 2011. The plaintiffs hoped to replace the existing redistricting maps.

October 2011: Interim map hearing scheduled

The San Antonio panel was scheduled to review the recently submitted interim map proposals on Monday October 31, 2011. The court planned to hear the proposals on Monday and then break until Thursday November 3rd, 2011 to account for the judgment of the DC case which was scheduled for Wednesday November 2nd, 2011.

October 2011: Interim map proposals submitted

October 18, 2011 was the deadline for participants to submit interim map proposals in Texas' consolidated redistricting case being heard in a San Antonio federal court. Among those who submitted proposals were: State Representatives Marc Veasey (D) and Harold Dutton, Jr. (D), State Senator Wendy Davis (D), Congressmen Cuellar and Canseco, multiple Hispanic advocacy groups, the NAACP and African-American members of Congress, Travis County plaintiffs, and the State of Texas. One particular proposal put forth by the Mexican American Legislative Caucus could have ended the primary between US Representative Lloyd Doggett (D) and State Representative Joaquin Castro (D) by splitting the contested district into two - one centered around San Antonio and one around Austin. Objections to the proposals had to be submitted to the court by October 24, 2011.

September 2011: Court drew interim maps

The San Antonio federal court hearing Texas' consolidated redistricting case announced on September 30, 2011 its plans for preemptively drawing interim state house and congressional maps. A similar order was filed on October 3, 2011 putting in place the court's plans to draw interim maps for the state senate. The maps were to be used in place of the state's own maps which were awaiting Voting Rights Act preclearance in a DC court. Hearings on the court's interim maps began on October 31, 2011.

September 2011: Judge halts Texas from implementing maps

US District Judge Orlando Garcia stopped Texas' redistricting maps from becoming legally adopted on September 29, 2011. Garcia was one of three judges on a federal panel in San Antonio hearing the consolidated case consisting of numerous legal challenges to the state's 2011 redistricting plans. The court order was needed because the maps were set to become law on October 1st, 2011 and with no legal declaration yet to come down on either side, county election officials were in limbo.

September 2011: Closing arguments

The federal three-judge panel case began hearing closing arguments from plaintiffs on September 15, 2011. Democratic Representative Marc Veasey's (D) lawyer, Gerry Hebert, said “Let's not pretend the state didn't know the racial implications of what they were doing. They knew it at every click of the mouse in drawing the map.” Attorneys for the Mexican American Legislative caucus and the Latino Redistricting Task Force also gave closing arguments. After the close of the trial, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Greg Abbott said in an email “The state is confident that the new legislative and congressional maps comply with both the federal Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.” A spokeswoman for Governor Rick Perry commented “The legislature determined and approved the map, and the governor signed it and believes it went through a fair process."

While the closing arguments were heard on September 15th and 16th, 2011, participants and watchers had to wait to hear a decision. The reason for the delay was judges in the case were awaiting the outcome of another Texas federal redistricting case simultaneously occurring in DC. Texas submitted its plans to a DC federal panel in hopes of obtaining Voting Rights Act clearance. A Dallas lawyer close to the redistricting case said “The San Antonio court will hold back and wait until the D.C. court decides these are legally enforceable maps or not. If the D.C. court decides they are legal, the San Antonio court will then rule on the racial gerrymandering claims. If the D.C. court finds the new maps violate the Voting Rights Act, the issue will come back to San Antonio, and the judges here will draw new maps.”

February 2011: Undocumented immigrant population lawsuit

The first lawsuit in Texas targeting the 2011 redistricting cycle was filed on February 11, 2011. The Texas Tribune reported that "Attorney Michael Hull of Austin, representing three North Texas voters, sued the state and a bunch of others, alleging that counting unauthorized immigrants in political districts has an unfair and illegal effect on voters in districts with smaller numbers of non-citizens."

The plaintiffs named in the case were:

"KAAREN TEUBER; JIM K. BURG; RICKY L. GRUNDEN"

The defendants named in the case were:

"STATE OF TEXAS; RICK PERRY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; DAVID DEWHURST, in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor and Presiding Officer of the Texas Senate; JOE STRAUS, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives; HOPE ANDRADE, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas; BOYDE RICHIE, in his official capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party; STEVE MUNISTERI, in his official capacity as Chair of the Texas Republican Party; GARY LOCKE, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Commerce; and ROBERT GROVES, in his official capacity as Director of the United States Bureau of the Census"

The lawsuit can be viewed in its entirety here.

April 2011: MALC Hispanic population lawsuit

The second lawsuit in Texas targeting the 2011 redistricting cycle was filed on April 5, 2011. The Mexican American Legislative Caucus filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas requesting that redistricting measures be halted due to alleged misrepresentation of Hispanics. The group claimed that rural border communities coined colonias, inhabited largely by poor unauthorized immigrants, were undercounted because the Census Bureau did not mail forms out to members of the 800 to 1,200 colonias. A spokeswoman for the governor’s office said they had received the litigation and would not be commenting on the issue while the matter was still pending.

The lawsuit sought to halt redistricting maps being drawn by the Texas Legislature. Judge Ramon Garcia, of Hidalgo County -- one of the affected areas -- was preparing action against the U.S. Census Bureau over similar concerns. He believed that "the census tally of about 750,000 county residents was short by as many as 250,000 people, an undercount that could mean $300 million to $400 million in lost federal funding for education, health care and infrastructure."

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau told the Houston Chronicle that any errors would have the chance to be resolved in 2012 through the Census Coverage Measurement Program and the Count Question Resolution Program.

May 2011: Prisoner counting lawsuit

A third redistricting lawsuit had been filed in Texas. Representative Harold Dutton (D) of Houston filed a suit in federal court against the state of Texas on Monday May 9th, 2011 arguing that prisoners should be counted in their homes of residence for redistricting purposes. They are counted in the locations of their incarceration. The Houston Chronicle reports that "Dutton said some rural counties are awarded more population than they deserve using current prisoner population counting methods. Urban counties, meanwhile, should be able to report higher population counts, he said. Dutton said the way the state counts prisoners violates rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."

May 2011: Representative Joe Barton lawsuit

Representative Joe Barton (R) filed Texas' fourth redistricting lawsuit with District Judge James Lagomarsino in Navarro County on May 22, 2011 at 12:01 am. Barton was suing because the Texas Legislature had failed to produce a new map for Texas' U.S. congressional delegation.

An email from Barton to constituents dated May 23, 2011 reads:

Dear Texas Colleague,
At 12:01 a.m. on May 22, 2011, moments after it became clear that the Texas Legislature could not create a new Congressional District map in time, I filed a lawsuit in Navarro County District Court to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of Texas. I had hoped that the Texas Legislature would fulfill its duty. However, time expired and I believe filing a lawsuit was the only way to ensure that our constituents had a Congressional map that meets the needs and rights of every voter. I acted immediately after the legislative deadline passed to increase the likelihood that this lawsuit would become the vehicle for Attorney General of Texas to use in creating the Congressional map for the 2012 election cycle. I will keep you updated on the progress of the suit. As lead plaintiff, I will be pressing a map to the attorney general and the court. Your thoughts and ideas will be very helpful so please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Joe Barton, 6th District of Texas, Member of Congress.

May 2011: Travis County, TX lawsuit

Travis County, TX had plans in place to sue the state of Texas over redistricting. County commissioners authorized County Attorney David Escamilla to file a suit on May 24th, 2011. "County officials are concerned about current plans to split Travis County into four U.S. congressional districts, Escamilla said. "We want to be in a position to counter those efforts.""

June 2011: League of United Latin American Citizens lawsuit

Another redistricting lawsuit was filed in Texas on June 11, 2011, this one from the League of United Latin American Citizens, "the oldest and largest Latino membership organization in the United States." The group filed the suit against the state of Texas over how redistricting lines were drawn and the resulting effects on minority representation.

June 2011: Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force

A coalition of Hispanic advocacy groups, with the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force as lead plaintiff, filed a federal redistricting lawsuit against Governor Rick Perry on June 17, 2011. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, challenged redistricting plans for the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas U.S. congressional delegation on grounds that minority voting representation was not proportionate to 2010 Census population data. The suit sought to strengthen Hispanic voting power within the state.

July 2011: Marc Veasey lawsuit

Democratic State Representative Marc Veasey announced in July 2011 he intended to file a lawsuit to block the state's congressional redistricting plan. He said the plan disproportionately diluted minority voting power in the Lone Star State.

August 2012: Maps found to violate Voting Rights Act

On August 28, 2012, a federal three-judge panel in Washington denied pre-clearance to the legislature's set of maps, effectively tossing out new state senate, state house and congressional districts.

According to the ruling the new maps diluted minority voting strength and discriminated against Hispanics and Black people, both violations of the Voting Rights Act. While minority groups hailed the ruling as a victory, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) said the panel expanded protections of the VRA and vowed he would "appeal this flawed decision to the U.S. Supreme Court."

A different federal three-judge panel in San Antonio ruled on August 31 that the November 2012 elections in the state would proceed with the interim maps drawn by a court back in February.

Abbott announced on October 19 that the state appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating,

The State of Texas is appealing this case because the lower court improperly extended the Voting Rights Act beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution and created new standards that have never been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. The maps enacted by the Texas Legislature satisfy all necessary legal requirements, so the judges in Washington, D.C. simply created new requirements in an attempt to justify their rejection of Texas' maps. In order to ensure the Texas Legislature's maps apply to the next election cycle, the State is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and override the lower court's flawed decision during the Court's current term.

Noteworthy events

January 2011: Mark Thoma refused to participate

Representative Mark Strama (D) of House District 50 (Austin) announced on January 13th 2011 that he would not participate in the redistricting process due to skepticism over the partisan nature of the legislature-controlled process. Community Impact Newspaper reported that "Strama said he's not going to draw any maps, he's not going to lobby his neighbors for specific borders, he's not going to participate in any redistricting committee hearings, and he said he may not even vote on the final redistricting bill in the coming months." Strama explained: "When the Legislature controls redistricting, the likeliest outcome is that there will be fewer districts that are evenly balanced with a genuine chance of being competitive in the general election. There are far more districts where the outcome of the general election is preordained by the district boundaries. It's just wrong."

Voting Rights Act

Texas was among the states that had to submit their redistricting plans to the federal government for approval under the auspices of the Voting Rights Act. The standard route for obtaining federal approval was for states to submit their plans to the Voting Rights Division of the Department of Justice; this was the route Texas had taken in the past. But Senator Wentworth noted that Texas would probably not submit their redistricting plans to the Justice Department for preclearance this time, saying the Obama administration's DOJ was partisan. Instead, Texas used the alternate method of going directly to the courts and had their redistricting plans reviewed by a three-judge federal court in DC.

July 2011: Texas submitted plans to federal court

Attorney General Greg Abbott submitted Texas' four redistricting maps to a panel of three federal judges in Washington DC on July 19, 2011. Political tension between Texas and the Obama administration's DOJ led state leaders to attempt to circumvent the traditional route during the 2011 cycle. After filing the plans with the federal judges, Attorney General Abbott also then informally submitted the maps to the DOJ for preclearance. Abbott said filing the maps with the DOJ was "to facilitate and expedite disposition of this matter."

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office filed a brief in the US District Court of the District of Columbia on August 3, 2011, arguing against the attempt of two Democratic legislators at joining the federal case over Texas' pre-clearance. State Representative Marc Veasey (D) and State Senator Wendy Davis (D) filed a motion to join the case days after Texas submitted its redistricting plans to the federal three-judge panel for pre-clearance review. Lawyers with the Texas Attorney General office argued that the Democratic lawmakers "don't have standing to join the federal case and shouldn't be allowed to because their concerns are represented in redistricting lawsuits that have already been filed in Texas."

A federal judge ruled on August 16, 2011 that State Representative Marc Veasey (D) and State Senator Wendy Davis (D) would be allowed to join Texas' court case seeking Voting Rights Act clearance for the state's redistricting plans through a three-judge federal DC court. Texas Republicans protested the Democratic lawmakers' motion to join the case by claiming they lacked standing to join the federal case. Veasey and Davis joined the case with three local Texas residents who argued the Republican-drawn redistricting maps illegally diluted minority voting power. Upon notification of the judge’s decision Senator Davis commented ""This early victory gives Tarrant County voters a strong voice in this process and points to the likelihood that new boundaries for Senate District 10 will eventually be ordered. I am proud to stand with North Texans fighting these illegal maps and I'm confident that a fair and thorough review of the maps will restore the voting rights that were trampled upon during the overtly partisan and discriminatory redistricting process in the Legislature."

Following the Democratic legislators' success, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus filed a similar motion with the three-judge panel on August 17, 2011, asking to join the suit.

August 2011: Judge ordered emails unsealed

Over 400 emails between key Republican political figures in Texas were ordered released on August 11, 2011 by a federal judge in a battle over the state's redistricting plans. The emails in question were sent during the period from October 2010 and June 2011 between members of the Texas congressional delegation, the Texas State Legislature, and their respective staffs. Democrats requested the emails in an effort to accumulate evidence against Republican-drawn redistricting maps. Republicans objected to releasing the emails as evidence, claiming they were constitutionally privileged congressional communication. The judge rejected Republican claims of constitutional protection and ordered the emails to be unsealed.

The emails showed Republican lawmakers and their staffs negotiating and discussing possible scenarios for the districts. One particular email exchange revolved around redrawing San Antonio congressional districts - specifically the makeup of districts represented by US Representatives Lamar Smith and Francisco "Quico" Canseco. An email from Representative Lamar Smith to his lawyer asked if would “it help Quico on the margin if I gave him 3k more in Bexar (either GOP or Hispanics) and took Edwards [County] in exchange.” Smith's lawyer replied that Canseco's district “is barely performing (or not depending on your measure) right now; add [Republicans] (which will be Anglos) and you put a neon sign on it telling the court to redraw it. Bring down your numbers and you'll have a Dem opponent every time. And they won't be Lainey Melnick.” The referenced exchange never occurred but Democrats pointed to the emails as evidence of illegal action.

2010 election

In 2011, Republicans controlled the State Senate, had a supermajority in the House, and had the offices of Governor, Lt Governor, and Attorney General - all the key redistricting offices and bodies.

2014 ruling

The Texas State Legislature was being sued for unconstitutional redistricting of the state house districts following the 2010 census. The U.S. Department of Justice argued on July 14, 2014, that the redistricting of the state's legislative districts "discriminated against Hispanic voters and tried to protect Republican incumbents." In 2013, Texas was one of fifteen states with a history of voting discrimination that was deemed by the high court as no longer needing approval from Washington under the Voting Rights Act to change election laws. The Justice Department argued that Texas should still be required to obtain federal approval. Attorney for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Bryan Sells, said that Texas had "adopted maps that discriminated against its citizens" since 1970. Patrick Sweeten, an Assistant Texas Attorney General, said, "No one in the Texas Legislature discriminated on the basis of race." If the Texas Legislature was proven to be guilty of discrimination, it could have to be approved for election or voting law changes by the U.S. Attorney General or federal judges. A map of the state house districts for the 83rd Legislature can be found on the Texas Legislative Council website.

Timeline

Texas 2010-2012 redistricting timeline
Date	Action
April 1, 2010	Census Day
Summer–Fall 2010	Regional outreach hearings in selected cities
December 31, 2010	Deadline for delivery of state total population data
January 10, 2011	Deadline for announcement of number of congressional seats apportioned to the states
January 11, 2011	82nd Legislature convenes
February 15, 2011	Earliest likely delivery of census population data
April 1, 2011	Deadline for delivery of census population data
May 12, 2011	Last day to pass house bills under rules (rules may change)
May 30, 2011	82nd Legislature adjourns; deadline for enactment of state senate and house districts
May 31–August 27, 2011	Legislative Redistricting Board convenes if legislature fails to adopt a senate or house plan
Summer–Fall 2011	Special session on congressional and State Board of Education plans could be called, if necessary
October 26, 2011	Last day Legislative Redistricting Board may adopt a plan
Fall 2011	All plans drawn by the legislature, the Legislative Redistricting Board, or a state district court must obtain preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
June–December 2011	Possible court challenges to redistricting plans
January 2, 2012	Filing deadline for 2012 elections
March 6, 2012	Primary elections

History

The Texas Politics Multimedia Textbook produced by the University of Texas at Austin provides the following historical perspective on redistricting in Texas:

The Texas Constitution of 1876 required that the Legislature pass a redistricting plan during the first session after the publication of the decennial national census of the population. However, the Legislature sometimes did not follow through on this obligation. This resulted in the under-representation of the people in those districts where population grew faster than the rest of the state. The failure to redistrict favored the rural areas at the expense of Texas's growing urban centers. The latter's faster population growth meant they deserved additional seats in the state Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

Because of the imbalance in representation that had developed over the decades, an amendment was adopted in 1948 that gave the Legislature extra incentive to carry out their obligations as specified under the original Constitution. Under this amendment, if in the first legislative session after the publication of the decennial census of the population a redistricting plan was not adopted, the responsibility passed to the Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB)...The prospect of the LRB determining district boundaries represented a significant incentive to the Legislature to seriously engage its redistricting obligation, as a LRB-authored plan would diminish significantly lawmakers' control over their own re-election fates.

2003 redistricting

Texas undertook a mid-decade redistricting plan in 2003. The plan, titled 1374 C, was legally contested numerous times and was heard by the United States Supreme Court. The plan was spearheaded by then US Representative Tom Delay (R). Republicans claimed that the district maps that were developed during the 2000 decennial cycle did not accurately reflect the demographic and political make-up of the state. While not standard practice, it was within the law for states to redistrict in between decennial cycles.

2003 Texas redistricting and Tom DeLay

Figure 1: This map shows the Texas Congressional Districts after the 2000 census.

See also

• State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census
• State-by-state redistricting procedures

External links

• Official Texas Redistricting website
• Texas Senate Redistricting Committee
• Texas House Redistricting Committee