Federal trial opens to determine whether Texas discriminated in redrawn redistricting maps
Some advocates will also argue in a set of cases four years in the making that the state intentionally discriminated — while the state will combat that claim.
A panel of three U.S. district judges in El Paso will hear the cases over the next month that allege the state violated federal law in its redistricting process — the once-a-decade redrawing of congressional and state district maps after every U.S. Census to ensure that all districts have approximately the same number of people.
The plaintiffs include the League of United Latin American Citizens, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Texas chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. They plan to argue that in 2021, the Republican-majority Legislature deliberately drew its congressional, state House and senate districts in a way that split up voters of color and diluted their political power.
The case has been delayed while the parties fought over what information legislative members are required to disclose.
Plaintiffs point to data around the racial makeup of the state and those of the districts in their arguments: though whites and Latinos made up nearly the same share of the population in Texas in 2020, the state drew 23 white-majority districts out of 38 total congressional districts, while Latino voters made up majorities in only seven. The remaining eight districts had no majority group.
According to the 2020 Census, Texas added 4 million residents in the prior decade and gained two congressional districts. Of the population growth, 95% was among communities of color, with more than half of the growth among the Latino community.
'The inflated number of majority-white districts does not reflect the Census data and does not allow for fair representation,' Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, an advocacy group supporting the plaintiffs in the congressional case, said at a news conference this week. 'It is clear that Texas' congressional map denies Latino voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.''
If a court finds that to be true, it wouldn't be the first time: in every decade since the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, Texas has been found by a federal court to have violated federal law by illegally discriminating against voters of color. The law prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race, color or those who belong to a language minority group.
After the 2010 redistricting cycle, for example – in a battle with similar arguments — federal judges ruled that Texas lawmakers intentionally discriminated against Hispanic and Black voters by unnecessarily crowding them into certain districts.
The allegations that the state violated the Voting Rights Act don't require the plaintiffs to prove the state intended to discriminate — only that the effect of the maps does so. Some of the plaintiffs are bringing additional claims that the state violated the 14th Amendment by intentionally discriminating against them, which does require proving the state acted in bad faith.
Various groups have sued the state since 2021, even before the maps were ratified. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division ordered those groups to consolidate their cases into the one that begins Wednesday.
The groups allege the state could have drawn a Latino-majority district in the state senate and congressional districts that encompass Dallas-Fort Worth and Harris counties, but failed to do so.
In the House maps, plaintiffs allege the Legislature failed to create Latino-majority districts where there was opportunity to do so in those counties, as well in Central and West Texas, and Bexar, Denton/Wise and Brazoria counties.
The NAACP also alleges the state intentionally discriminated against Black voters in all three maps.
The state plans to defend the maps on the basis that partisan interests, not race, were the primary factor in drawing the maps.
'The Texas Legislature drew the maps blind to race,' the state's pre-trial brief says. 'The redistricting lawmakers did not mince words: they intended to design maps that advanced partisan interests and other traditional redistricting principles.'
The Republican-led Legislature drew the maps, while the advocates who brought the lawsuits are arguing on behalf of Black and Latino voters who historically have aligned with the Democratic party.
The state's brief says the legislative record will show both Republican and Democratic lawmakers acknowledged the Legislature's 'partisan motivations for drawing districts' — although in pre-trial proceedings leading up to Wednesday, the Legislature's chief map drawer, Houston Republican Sen. Joan Huffman, declined to share some of the reasoning behind the maps, citing 'legislative privilege,' a protection afforded by the state constitution.
The state also plans to argue that population growth was uneven, and that in some areas, such as El Paso County, declining population led to the reduction in the number of House districts where there was a Latino majority.
The governor's office and attorney general's office did not respond to requests for comments on the case.
Though the Legislature passed the bills creating the maps in 2021, lawmakers that session were unable to ratify the maps due to a Democratic walkout over a separate bill related to election processes. The next Legislature in 2023 then ratified the maps.
In the meantime, two primary and two general elections have taken place under those maps.
That includes the primary election in 2022, after the Court sided with the state on allowing the map for Senate District 10 to be used. Plaintiffs tried to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, but they dismissed the appeal because it was filed too late.
For Jenkins, with the National Redistricting Foundation, the impacts of a map that potentially violates the law means less of a voice for some Texans.
'The long-term effects of depriving a community of a seat at the table can be seen in disparities in multiple aspects of life, such as higher poverty and unemployment rates, lower incomes and being underrepresented in public office,' she said at the briefing. 'This case isn't just about the congressional map, it's about representation and living up to the fundamental ideal that should guide our democracy, that every individual has the right to exercise self determination at the ballot box.'
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Evan Ramstad: The vibe isn't great at Target today, but things were much worse in 2014
The vibe is tough at Target these days. Once widely beloved by social activists and fast-casual fashionistas, Minneapolis-based Target now is accused by Black media leaders and activists of turning its back on diversity. Investors think the retailer missed out on data centers. And President Donald Trump's tariffs may wipe out the company's profit. So things look pretty challenging for new CEO Michael Fiddelke, a Target lifer who came up through finance and other roles in its downtown headquarters. And yet things were more challenging 11 years ago, when Brian Cornell became the first outsider to lead Target. A lot happens over a decade, and recency bias makes us think that whatever is happening now is bigger, badder or just more than before. Which means it's easy to forget what Target was like in the summer of 2014. Its business model of building stores in growing population centers, which yielded rising sales and profits for about 25 years, seemed played out. After a long period of adding 20 or 30 stores a year, Target's U.S. store count fell by three in 2014 and grew by two in 2015. Meanwhile, an expansion into Canada went so badly Target was internally forecasting it would lose money there for at least five years. Canada had already pushed Target's overall profit downward for two years. But the real problem facing Target was that it didn't have a strategy for dealing with the consumer shift to shopping on computers and smartphones. Of course it had a website at the time, and its digital-related business contributed half of its comparable sales growth in 2014. It was not, however, focused on how rapidly things were changing, said Doug Baker, who joined the Target board of directors in 2013 and is now its longest-serving member. Baker, the retired CEO of St. Paul-based Ecolab, told my colleague Carson Hartzog and me this summer that Target's foray into Canada, in addition to producing financial losses, was distracting executives and diverting resources from what he considered an existential threat posed by the analog-to-digital transformation of shopping. "I say it was existential because we were on a path that would've left us too far behind to catch up," Baker said. For him, companies fall into three big categories, and it's the job of a CEO to sort out what will make a company soar and what will kill it. "I would describe it as nonsurvivors, survivors and thrivers," Baker said. Target in 2014 was "on the border of `Are we a survivor or a nonsurvivor?' Nobody was even wondering if we were going to thrive." Within eight months of arriving at Target, Cornell took the most difficult actions of his 11 years atop the company. He ended the Canada project, eliminating more than 17,000 jobs there. A few weeks later, he restructured the entire company, a process that ended 1,700 jobs, or 13%, in its corporate offices downtown and in Brooklyn Park. It was the biggest downsizing in absolute numbers in Minnesota since 2002, and none has come close since. Initially, Cornell threw money and talent at innovation labs and projects. In 2017, in the face of stalling sales growth, he pulled back from those investments and focused on updating Target's branded products, remodeling stores and creating a delivery model for digital orders that took advantage of its 1,800-store footprint in the U.S. When the pandemic came in 2020, those moves paid off. For consumers staying at home under government orders, Target was ready for delivery or store pick-up. Its sales exploded in 2020 and 2021, with revenue that had hovered around $70 billion rising past $100 billion. And investors were rewarded with gains unseen since the late 1990s. Target's shares, which spent much of the 2010s in the $50-$70 range, peaked at $260 in July 2021. Target has preserved those sales gains, but it hasn't been able to build on them over the last three years. Its stock closed at $98.69 on Wednesday, a 6% drop. It was last at this price in April 2020. The stall-out since 2022 has led some critics to say Cornell got lucky. "He was really like the novice blackjack player sitting at the table when the dealer busts," Chris Walton, a former Target executive who was part of Cornell's pre-2017 innovation drive, told me earlier this summer. "You think you're good, but you're really not. You just got dealt a good hand." That assessment is much too harsh. Target under Cornell clawed out of the mess in Canada and finally moved beyond the build-it-and-they-will-come strategy that made sense in the 1980s and 1990s, when the country was growing much faster. With Cornell, Target solved the last-mile problem that vexed its e-commerce rivals by making its stores a key link in fulfilling digital orders. That pushed up one key measure of efficiency, revenue per square foot of the company's space, to around $450 today from around $350 in much of the 2010s. Target in 2022 announced Cornell would likely retire in fall 2025. Fiddelke's appointment ends a leadership vacuum that grew as the date neared. He's got a lot to do. Target needs to start growing again. That's challenging, but it's not a crisis. "I consider us in a very different place - team talent, tech capabilities, understanding how retail really works, understanding where the customer is going. We don't have a Canada to fix," Baker said. "So, it's not an existential question anymore." --- Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California Supreme Court clears way for Newsom's redistricting plan
The state Supreme Court opened the door Wednesday to plans by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats to redraw California's congressional districts in a gerrymander designed to pick up five seats, rejecting a Republican legal challenge. A lawsuit Monday by legislative Republicans contended the hastily drafted ballot measure, scheduled for votes in both houses on Thursday, has not been published long enough to meet the public-notice requirements in the state Constitution. But the court dismissed the suit Wednesday in a brief order with little explanation. The Republican lawmakers 'have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under (the) California Constitution,' the court said. Six justices, all appointed by Democratic governors, endorsed the order, while Justice Carol Corrigan, the only Republican appointee, was absent and did not participate, the court said. Newsom proposed the ballot measure, titled the Election Rigging Response Act, after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott introduced legislation to redraw the state's House districts and enable Republicans to pick up five seats in next year's elections. Democrats currently hold 43 of California's 52 House seats. The governor's measure, if approved by two-thirds majorities in both the Assembly and state Senate — where Democrats hold more than two-thirds of the seats — would redesign California's House seats for the rest of this decade in response to changes in Texas or any other state. Ballot measures approved by the voters in 2008 and 2010 established a bipartisan, independent commission to draft congressional and legislative districts in California, a task previously left up to state legislators, who design districts in most states. Newsom's proposed state constitutional amendment, ACA8, would temporarily suspend that commission if approved by a majority of the voters in November. While California law does not allow legislative action on a proposed measure until 30 days after it has been introduced, Democrats apparently sidestepped that deadline with a longstanding practice known as 'gut and amend' — using other legislation that had been pending for more than 30 days, erasing the contents and replacing them with the redistricting language. That was apparently enough to defeat the Republicans' lawsuit. Other Republican lawmakers, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, have promised additional challenges under the California Constitution and federal election laws.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
California Supreme Court rejects GOP effort to halt Newsom's redistricting push
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by state Republican legislators seeking to halt Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict California's congressional map. 'Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under California Constitution article IV, section 8,' reads a brief order posted to the docket. Newsom has hit back at Republican redistricting efforts in Texas by pushing for a special election this November to get voters' approval on a more favorable House map for Democrats in California in time for the 2026 midterms. The ruling paves the way for the California legislature to proceed with voting as soon as Thursday on a package that would set up the special election. Republicans' legal challenge revolved around a 30-day waiting period mandated under the state constitution before an introduced bill can be passed, unless three-fourths of lawmakers agree to waive the requirement. Democrats looked to get around the requirement by gutting the text of bills introduced in February and replacing them with the redistricting effort. Four state Republican legislators — Sen. Tony Strickland, Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares, Assemblyman Tri Ta and Assemblywoman Kate Sanchez — went to the state's high court on Tuesday seeking to effectively block the redistricting effort. The petition sought to stop Democrats from moving ahead until Sept. 18, far past the window that state officials have said would be necessary to prepare for an election on Nov. 4. The lawmakers' attorneys acknowledged in court filings that it was a case of first impression but said that permitting Democrats' strategy would be 'comically absurd.' In a joint statement, the lawmakers stressed the court did not explain its ruling and said it is 'not the end of this fight.' 'This means Governor Newsom and the Democrats' plan to gut the voter-created Citizens Redistricting Commission, silence public input, and stick taxpayers with a $200+ million bill will proceed,' the statement reads. 'We will continue to challenge this unconstitutional power grab in the courts and at the ballot box. Californians deserve fair, transparent elections, not secret backroom deals to protect politicians,' it continued.
