Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which Texas congressional or legislative districts were found discriminatory after the 2020 Census?
Executive Summary
Federal and state litigation following the 2020 Census alleges that multiple Texas congressional and legislative districts diluted the voting power of Latino, Black, and Asian voters, but courts have reached different procedural and substantive findings at different times; no single definitive list of “found discriminatory” districts has been universally finalized as of the latest filings and trials described in the record. Plaintiffs consolidated in cases like LULAC v. Abbott and related suits have identified specific districts in El Paso, Harris County, Dallas–Fort Worth, and other regions as ripe for Section 2 or constitutional claims, while courts have allowed many claims to proceed to trial, denied some preliminary relief, and reserved or stayed final merits rulings pending additional proceedings [1] [2] [3].
1. Why plaintiffs say the maps fracture communities and dilute power — the complaint-level allegations that grabbed headlines
Plaintiffs including LULAC, the Texas NAACP, MALC, Voto Latino, and others assert that Texas’ post‑2020 congressional, state Senate, and state House plans were drawn to split voters of color across districts, producing far more white‑majority congressional districts than the state’s demographic shift would predict. Complaints highlight Texas’s population growth being driven largely by nonwhite residents, the creation of only seven Latino‑majority congressional districts despite population shares, and specific splits in Dallas–Fort Worth and Harris County where heavily Latino neighborhoods were divided between TX‑33 and TX‑06, among other claims [1] [4]. These pleadings frame violations under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to redraw maps rather than mere damages [5] [2]. The emphasis across complaints is on effect as well as alleged intent—showing both dilution patterns and asserted purposeful race‑based line drawing.
2. What courts actually ruled on early motions — partial wins, partial dismissals, many questions left open
Federal judges denied some motions to dismiss and allowed several Gingles (Section 2) claims to survive because plaintiffs plausibly alleged that minority populations are large, compact, and politically cohesive enough to form majority districts in many proposed configurations. In September 2022 a court found plaintiffs alleged enough to satisfy the first Gingles precondition for multiple districts, while dismissing or permitting amendment on limited claims such as the originally labeled Enacted Congressional District 27 (later proposed CD‑10) for failing to allege citizen voting‑age majorities [6]. Courts have repeatedly split the difference: permitting trials to resolve factual questions about vote dilution and intent, but declining to grant statewide preliminary injunctions in several instances, leaving final merits determinations pending [3]. The litigation record thus shows judicial willingness to examine the maps but not a blanket judicial finding that every challenged district is unlawful.
3. The 2025 bench trial and holds: trial started, motions reserved, some proceedings stayed
A consolidated bench trial occurred in spring 2025 on many of the claims, with the court hearing evidence and reserving judgment on motions for judgment as a matter of law; the court subsequently put parts of the litigation on hold as higher‑order legal questions about Section 2 and coalition claims percolated upward [1] [3]. Plaintiffs provided charts isolating congressional, Senate, and House claims and identified clusters of districts — including El Paso, parts of Harris County, and DFW — as focal points for alleged discriminatory effects [5]. The litigation tempo reflects heightened stakes: the state defends the maps as driven by partisan considerations and asserts they were “blind to race,” while plaintiffs press both intent and results theories; the court’s reservation of rulings shows the factual and legal complexity at issue [1] [5].
4. Legal landscape shifts: coalition theory, appellate decisions, and consequences for district findings
A significant appellate development altered the doctrine allowing minority groups to combine claims — historically enabling coalition districts where no single minority group has a majority. A 2024–2025 appellate shift overturned the prior precedent permitting two minority groups to join for a vote‑dilution claim, potentially narrowing plaintiffs’ remedies in multiracial metros and complicating claims that previously could show a combined minority majority [7]. This doctrinal change affects which districts can be deemed violative: districts that relied on coalition theory may no longer meet Section 2 Gingles in some courts, and the issue has escalated toward higher appellate review, influencing why some district findings remain unresolved or stayed [7]. The DOJ and other parties flagged that such rulings could materially change the number and composition of districts subject to replacement.
5. The bottom line: no single authoritative roster of “discriminatory” Texas districts yet — but targets are clear
Across consolidated complaints and court filings the most frequently identified hotspots are El Paso, Harris County (Houston), and Dallas–Fort Worth area districts, along with multiple state House and Senate districts alleged to dilute Latino, Black, and Asian voters; courts have found certain pleadings sufficient to proceed while dismissing narrow claims and reserving final merits rulings [5] [4] [6]. The litigation remains fluid: some district‑specific claims survived motions to dismiss and advanced to trial, others were pared back or amended, and appellate shifts on coalition claims have introduced new uncertainty about which districts ultimately will be judicially invalidated [6] [7]. For now, the record reflects substantive allegations and partial judicial validation of those allegations, but not a single, definitive court order listing all discriminatory districts statewide.