Redistricting in Texas after the 2020 census

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 committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
Congressional and state legislative maps
Redistricting apps and software
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering

Redistricting is the process of enacting new congressional and state legislative district boundaries. Upon completion of the 2020 census, Texas will draft and enact new district maps. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Texas.

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

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

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

Summary

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

• September 7, 2021: Gov. Greg Abbott (R) announced a third special legislative session beginning on September 20 that will focus on redistricting.
• September 1, 2021: Two Democratic state senators filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas saying that the state legislature cannot legally redraw district maps in a special session.
• August 31, 2021: The Texas Legislature approved Senate Bill 13, a bill that would delay 2022 primary elections in the state based on when redistricting is completed.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Apportionment and release of census data

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

Apportionment following the 2020 census

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

See the table below for additional details.

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

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

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

Drafting process

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

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

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

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

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.

Timeline

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

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

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

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

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

Pre-drafting developments

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

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

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

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

Texas is drawing congressional district maps following the 2020 census. New congressional district maps have not yet been enacted.

Enacted state legislative district maps

Texas is drawing state legislative district maps following the 2020 census. New state legislative district maps have not yet been enacted.

Court challenges

Challenge of special session constitutionality

State Sens. Sarah Eckhardt (D) and Roland Gutierrez (D) filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on September 1, 2021, saying that the state legislature cannot legally redraw district maps because the Texas Constitution requires lawmakers to begin the process after the "first regular session after the publication of each United States decennial census." The suit said delays caused by COVID-19 resulted in census data being released after the end of last legislative session and redistricting cannot take place during a special session as planned. “The plain text of the Texas Constitution prevents the Legislature from apportioning its State House or State Senate districts in a special session at this time. Therefore, this Court faces the necessary duty of ensuring a constitutional administration of the 2022 Texas election cycle by drawing an interim map," the lawsuit said. The suit asks the court to draw interim maps until the next regular legislative session in January of 2023.

Background

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

• Federal requirements for congressional redistricting
• Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting
• State-based requirements
• Methods
• Gerrymandering
• Recent court decisions

What is redistricting and what does it entail?

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 preclearanceA jurisdiction subject to preclearance needed to get approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before changing election laws or district maps. from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

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

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

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

Trifectas and redistricting

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

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

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in Texas after the 2010 census

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

See also

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

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• All About Redistricting
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"