What district maps were used in texass 2012 election cycle?

Editor's note: This story has been updated throughout

Federal judges invalidated two Texas congressional districts Tuesday, ruling that they must be fixed by either the Legislature or a federal court.

A three-judge panel in San Antonio unanimously ruled that Congressional Districts 27 and 35 violate the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.

The judges found that Hispanic voters in Congressional District 27, represented by U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, were "intentionally deprived of their opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice." Congressional District 35 — a Central Texas district represented by Democrat Lloyd Doggett of Austin — was deemed "an impermissible racial gerrymander" because lawmakers illegally used race as the predominant factor in drawing it, the judges wrote.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one .

The 107-page ruling — the latest chapter of a six-year court battle over how Texas lawmakers drew political maps — sets up a scramble to redraw the districts in time for the 2018 elections. The court ruled only on the current congressional map, leaving legal challenges to the state House map unanswered.

The court ordered the Texas Attorney General’s Office to indicate within three business days whether the Texas Legislature would take up redistricting to fix those violations — although Republicans in Austin had previously expressed no appetite to undertake a special session devoted to redistricting.

Otherwise, the state and its legal foes will head back to court on Sept. 5 to begin re-drawing the congressional map.

That could shake up other congressional races when the boundaries are changed, though the court has asked the parties to consult with experts to “minimize the effect on adjoining districts.”

Before Tuesday’s decision, the judges had already ruled that the Texas Legislature sought to weaken the strength of Latino and black voters while drawing state House and congressional districts in 2011, immediately following the 2010 U.S. Census. But the 2011 maps never actually took effect.

Amid legal wrangling over the Legislature’s maps, the court drew temporary maps ahead of the 2012 elections. Texas lawmakers formally adopted those maps in 2013 and have used them for the past three election cycles.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one .

On Tuesday, the court ruled that the intentional discrimination behind the 2011 maps carried over into the 2013 map in places like CD-35 and CD-27, where the district boundaries were unchanged “because the Legislature engaged in no deliberative process to remove any such taint and intentionally furthered and continued the existing discrimination in the plans.”

The state argued in court that lawmakers could not have sought to discriminate because they adopted the court-drawn map. But the judges on Tuesday blasted the state for employing that strategy instead of “trying to cleanse the plans of continuing discriminatory intent or legal defect.”

They specifically took issue with the state’s argument that it could not be penalized for its past discrimination.

“This strategy is discriminatory at its heart and should not insulate either plan from review,” the court wrote.

The state did score a win on Congressional District 23 — represented by Republican Will Hurd of Helotes  — which the judges ruled could be left intact. That sprawling West Texas district was previously flagged as discriminatory but had been modified by the court since then. In Tuesday’s ruling, the judges called it a “Latino opportunity district.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton expressed mixed emotions about Tuesday’s outcome.

“We appreciate that the panel ruled in favor of Texas on many issues in the case. But the portion of the ruling that went against Texas is puzzling considering the Legislature adopted the congressional map the same court itself adopted in 2012,” the Republican said in a written statement. “We look forward to asking the Supreme Court to decide whether Texas had discriminatory intent when relying on the district court.”

Minority and civil rights groups suing the state celebrated the ruling as a win for voters who they say were forced to cast votes under unconstitutional maps.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one .

“Intentional discrimination is a bad habit for the Texas Legislature,” said Democratic state Rep. Rafael Anchia, chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus. “With the seventh ruling of intentional discrimination since 2011, a federal court confirmed today that Texas congressional maps remain unconstitutional.”

The ruling comes as state Republicans continue to grapple with the state’s rapidly changing demographics.

Texas is becoming less white each day, creating headaches for the party that currently dominates state government as minorities — particularly Hispanic and black voters — overwhelmingly support Democrats in elections.

State leaders’ attempt to confront that growth in their latest round of redistricting landed them in legal trouble.

Texas has not disputed that it practiced an extreme version of gerrymandering in 2011. But the state’s lawyers have argued that partisanship, not race, motivated them.

But in Texas and elsewhere, race and partisanship are often intertwined, and opponents of the maps successfully argued — in a few cases, at least — that lawmakers advanced their party’s interests by improperly looking to race.

It’s unclear what Tuesday’s ruling will mean for the future of federal oversight in crafting Texas election laws.

For decades under the Voting Rights Act, Texas was on a list of states and localities needing the federal government’s permission to change election laws, a safeguard for minority voting rights called preclearance. The U.S. Supreme Court wiped clean the list in 2013 and lifted federal oversight for Texas and other jurisdictions, noting that conditions for minority voters had "dramatically improved."

But the ruling left open the possibility that future, purposeful discrimination could mean a return to preclearance.

Congressional and Legislative

Congressional and legislative maps are enacted by the State Legislature. The Governor can veto the plans.

The Legislature can override a veto with a two-thirds vote. No party currently has a veto-proof majority in either chamber.

Legislative

If the Legislature cannot enact a legislative plan, the five-member Legislative Redistricting Board of Texas is given the responsibility. The Board consists of the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the Texas House, the Texas Attorney General, the Comptroller of Public Accounts, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

The Legislative Redistricting Board of Texas meets in Austin no less than 90 days after the adjournment of the regular session in a redistricting year. Before 60 days have passed since the first Board meeting, the Board draws new state legislative maps as the failure of action of the Texas Legislature makes necessary. The final redistricting plan is submitted in writing and must be signed by at least three Commissioners. It becomes law upon submission to the Secretary of State of Texas.

Source: Tex. Const. art. III, §§ 26, 28.

Previous Redistricting Cycles

2010

• Congressional
  • Original Plan – SB 4
    • Passed = June 20, 2011 (R-controlled)
    • Signed = July 18, 2011
    • Preclearance = Denied on August 28, 2012
  • Second Plan – SB 4
    • Passed = June 21, 2013 (R-controlled)
    • Signed = June 26, 2013
  • Litigation History
    • Texas v. United States, 831 F.Supp.2d 244 (D.D.C. 2011): Texas submitted its enacted congressional and legislative plans to the Washington D.C. federal district court for preclearance, objections to which were filed by the United States and various intervenors. On November 8, 2011, the district court denied the state’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the state used an improper standard to evaluate its plans’ effect on minority voting rights and there existed material facts in dispute as to their compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
      • Vacated, 133 S.Ct. 2885 (2013): U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Shelby County v. Holder and the possibility of mootness.
    • Texas v. United States II, 887 F.Supp.2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012): After Texas submitted its enacted congressional and legislative plans to the D.C. federal district court for preclearance, the district court denied preclearance as to all three sets of plans on August 28, 2012.Perez v. Perry, No. 5:11-cv-00360 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2011): Following the D.C. district court’s denial of preclearance to the state’s enacted congressional plan, a federal court was petitioned to adopt interim redistricting plans in time for the upcoming 2012 elections. On November 26, 2011, the district court adopted its congressional redistricting plan, Plan C220, for interim use in the 2012 election.
      • Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388 (2012): Texas appealed the district court’s adopted interim redistricting plans, arguing they were unnecessarily inconsistent with the State’s enacted plans. On January 20, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Texas’s argument, vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case to allow the district court to redraw its maps or to justify why it deviated from the state’s enacted plans.
    • Perez v. Perry, No. 5:11-cv-00360 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2012): On remand, the district court adopted its second interim congressional redistricting plan, Plan C235, on February 28, 2012.
    • Perez v. Perry II, 26 F.Supp.3d 612 (W.D. Tex. 2014): Plaintiffs challenged the Legislature’s second enacted congressional plan, SB 4, as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, Article I, Sections 2 and 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and the 1st Amendment. On June 17, 2014, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the partisan gerrymandering claims due to the lack of a clear and manageable standard to evaluate them.
• Legislative
  • Original Plans – HB 150 (House); SB 31 (Senate)
    • Passed = May 21, 2011 (R-controlled)
    • Signed = June 17, 2011
    • Preclearance = Denied on August 28, 2012
  • Second Plans – SB 3 (House); SB 2 (Senate)
    • Passed = June 23, 2013 (House); June 21, 2013 (Senate) (R-controlled)
    • Signed = June 26, 2013
  • Litigation History
    • Texas v. United States, 831 F.Supp.2d 244 (D.D.C. 2011): Texas submitted its enacted congressional and legislative plans to the Washington D.C. federal district court for preclearance, objections to which were filed by the United States and various intervenors. On November 8, 2011, the district court denied the state’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the state used an improper standard to evaluate its plans’ effect on minority voting rights and there existed material facts in dispute as to their compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
      • Vacated, 133 S.Ct. 2885 (2013): U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Shelby County v. Holder and the possibility of mootness.
    • Texas v. United States II, 887 F.Supp.2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012): After Texas submitted its enacted congressional and legislative plans to the D.C. federal district court for preclearance, the district court denied preclearance as to all three sets of plans on August 28, 2012.
    • Perez v. Perry, 835 F.Supp.2d 209 (W.D. Tex. 2011): After the D.C. district court denied preclearance to the Legislature’s enacted congressional and legislative plans, a federal court was petitioned to adopt interim redistricting plans in time for the upcoming 2012 elections. On November 23, 2011, the district court adopted its state House redistricting plan, Plan H302, for interim use in the 2012 elections.
      • Davis v. Perry, No. 5:11-cv-00788 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 23, 2011): Following the D.C. district court’s denial of preclearance to the state’s enacted redistricting plans, the district court adopted its state Senate redistricting plan, Plan S164, for interim use in the 2012 election on November 23, 2011.
      • Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388 (2012): Texas appealed the district court’s adopted interim redistricting plans, arguing they were unnecessarily inconsistent with the State’s enacted plans. On January 20, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Texas’s argument, vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case to allow the district court to redraw its maps or to justify why it deviated from the state’s enacted plans.
    • Perez v. Texas, No. 5:11-cv-00360 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2012): On remand, the district court issued its second interim state House redistricting plan, Plan H309, on March 19, 2012.
    • Davis v. Perry, No. 5:11-cv-00788 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2012): On remand, the district court issued its second interim state Senate redistricting plan, Plan S172, on March 19, 2012.
    • Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016): Plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Legislature’s second state Senate plan, SB 2, as violating the 14th Amendment’s one person, one vote principle on the grounds that certain Senate districts, which were apportioned based on total population, were substantially malapportioned when considering their citizen voting age population. On November 5, 2014, the district court ruled in favor of the defendants, and on April 4, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
    • Abbott v. Perez, 138 S.Ct. 2305 (2018): Plaintiffs challenged the Legislature’s second enacted state House plan as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and as resulting in vote dilution in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The district court, after requiring the State to show that their second plan was “purged” of the taint from the first, rejected plan, initially struck down several districts as racial gerrymanders or as resulting in vote dilution. On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment as to those districts struck down on VRA grounds but affirmed its ruling as to one of the districts found to be an impermissible racial gerrymander.
      • Remedial State House Plan – H 411
        • Approved by Court = May 28, 2019

2000

• Congressional
  • State Court’s Plan (Split-control Legislature failed to pass)
    • Issued = October 10, 2001
    • Rejected by Texas Supreme Court = October 19, 2001
  • Federal Court’s Plan
    • Adopted = November 14, 2001
    • Used for 2002 election
  • Legislature’s Amended Plan – HB 3
    • Passed = October 12, 2003 (R-controlled)
    • Signed = October 13, 2003
    • Preclearance = Granted on December 19, 2003
  • Litigation History
    • Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2001): After the split-control Legislature failed to pass a congressional redistricting plan, four different lawsuits in two different state courts were filed challenging the existing districts as unconstitutionally malapportioned and requesting that the court adopt a new, constitutional plan. On December 12, 2001, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the Travis County District Court had dominant jurisdiction over the redistricting actions, and ordered that the cases proceed to trial there.
      • Perry v. Del Rio, 67 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. 2001): After trial, the Travis County District Court ordered the adoption of a congressional redistricting plan on October 10, 2001, which the defendants appealed on the grounds the trial court failed to give the parties an opportunity to comment and to submit evidence about the new plan. On October 19, 2001, the Texas Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s October 10 order and remanded the case, finding that the court’s process when adopting the interim plan violated the parties’ state constitutional due process rights.
    • Balderas v. State, No. 6:01-cv-158 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2001): After the Texas Supreme Court vacated the Travis County District Court’s adoption of a congressional plan, a federal court assumed responsibility to draw and adopt a new plan. On November 14, 2001, the district court adopted its own congressional redistricting plan for use in the upcoming 2002 election.
      • Aff’d, 536 U.S. 919 (2002).
    • League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006): After the Legislature enacted its 2003 congressional plan (HB 3), several different plaintiffs filed federal lawsuits challenging the plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in violation of the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and as resulting in minority vote dilution in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On June 28, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that one of the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and remanded the case to district court with instructions to correct the violations by the 2006 election.
• Legislative
  • Backup Commission’s Plans – House; Senate (Split-control Legislature failed to pass)
    • Passed = July 24, 2001
    • Preclearance = Granted as to Senate plan on October 15, 2001; Denied as to House plan on November 16, 2001
  • Litigation History
    • Balderas v. State, No. 6:01-cv-158 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2001): Plaintiffs challenged the Legislative Redistricting Board’s adopted state House and Senate plans as violating the Voting Rights Act. On November 28, 2001, the district court rejected the challenges to the state Senate plan after finding the plaintiffs failed to establish violations of federal law, but ruled in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims against the state House plan, which had been denied preclearance already. The district court created its own state House plan to address the Department of Justice’s objections and adopted it for use in future elections.
      • Court’s State House Plan
        • Adopted = November 28, 2001

Governor Bill Signing

If a bill is presented to the governor during session, the governor has 10 days to sign or veto it; otherwise, it becomes law without signature. If the bill is delivered to the governor within 10 days of adjournment, the governor must sign or veto it within 20 days of session adjournment; otherwise, it becomes law. Sundays are excluded in these calculations. Line-item vetoes are permitted.

Ballot Measure Process

Kinds of Ballot Measures
Only the Texas Legislature may refer amendments to the ballot. There is no initiative or referendum process.

Source: Tex. Const. art. XVII.

In The News

• Texas Governor Must Turn Over Dropbox Files in Redistricting Case, Courthouse News Service (8/11/22)
• Texas Lawmakers Ordered to Turn Over Redistricting Records, Courthouse News Service (7/25/22)
• Supreme Court Rejects Texas GOP Lawmakers’ Bid to Block Redistricting Testimony, Washington Examiner (5/31/22)
• Federal Judges won’t Halt Texas Primary in State Senate District Being Challenged for Alleged Discrimination, The Texas Tribune (2/1/22)
• Justice Department Sues Texas Over New Redistricting Maps, AP (12/7/21)
• Texas Democrats Allege Discrimination, Challenge Redistricting Measures in 3 New Lawsuits, Austin American-Statesman (11/3/21)
• Texas Lawmakers Pass New Congressional Maps Bolstering GOP, AP (10/19/21)
• New District Maps for Texas Senate, Texas House Headed to Gov Greg Abbott's Desk, Houston Chronicle (10/15/21)
• Texas Senate Approves Congressional Map that Increases White Majority Districts, Austin American-Statesman (10/8/21)
• Texas GOP Tries to Protect US House Seats Under New Maps, AP (9/27/21)
• Texas Governor Hit with Federal Lawsuit Over Redistricting Plan, Courthouse News Service (9/1/21)
• Texas Lawmakers Approve Plan to Move March Primary Elections, if Necessary, San Antonio Express-News (8/30/21)
• Texas Officials Worry about Gaps in Census Data, KWTX (4/29/21)
• Texas Gains 4M Residents, 2 Congressional Seats in Census, AP (4/26/21)
• A Delay in Drawing New Maps this Year could Slow Next Year's Elections, Texas Tribune (2/10/21)
• Census Delays will Force Texas Lawmakers into a Special Session to Redraw Political Maps, The Texas Tribune (1/27/21)
• With Census Bureau Delays, Texas Legislative Council Says a Special Session might be Called in Summer for Redistricting, KTSM (1/7/21)
• Texas will Redraw its Congressional Maps in 2021. Here's How, Houston Public Media (12/22/20)
• Analysis: When Mapmaking Texas Politicians are Smiling and Quiet, Pay Attention, The Texas Tribune (12/16/20)
• Uncertainty Over Pandemic Protocols, Redistricting Await Texas' Next Legislative Session, Courthouse News Service (12/12/20)
• COVID could Delay Redistricting, Panelist Said, Spectrum News 1 (12/9/20)
• Republicans Kept their Grip on Texas Government in 2020. In 2021, they'll be Able to Tighten it, The Texas Tribune (11/13/20)
• Bill Filing for 2021 Texas Session Begins with Legislation on Abortion, Police Stops and Redistricting, The Texas Tribune (11/9/20)
• GOP Will Dominate Redistricting Battles with Victories in Texas, Bloomberg Government (11/4/20)
• Democrats' Hopes of Flipping Texas Again Fall Short as Republicans Dominate the State's 2020 Elections, The Texas Tribune (11/4/20)
• Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Appoints Birdwell to Senate Redistricting Committee, ltgov.texas.gov (10/20/20)
• Texas Census Advocates Worry Schedule Confusion Could Lead to Undercounting, NPR (10/2/20)
• With Time Running Out, Texas Abruptly Launches a $15 Million Ad Campaign Chasing an Accurate Census Count, The Texas Tribune (9/1/20)
• Billions of Dollars at Stake in 2020 Census as Houston Falls Behind, ABC 13 (9/1/20)
• 2020 Census 'Emergency' Threatens to Leave Out Communities of Color and Rural Americans, USA Today (8/16/20)
• Census Changes Could Take Political Power, Funding from Texas Latinos Already Hit Hard by COVID-19, KUT (8/11/20)
• Trump Plan in Allotting Congressional Seats Raises Alarm in Texas, Statesman (7/21/20)
• Census Fights Lagging Response Rates in Far West Texas Expanse, Border Report (7/6/20)
• Texans Can't Give Input Ahead Of Redistricting During The Pandemic. Groups Want That To Change, KUT (6/8/20)