Texas Racial Gerrymander Map Blocked for 2026
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
A Familiar Fight: The Latest Texas Redistricting Battle
A three-judge federal panel just blocked Texas from using its 2025 congressional map. The court found that the state intentionally sorted voters by race. This ruling is a major moment in Texas’s long, troubled history with voting rights. The decision prevents the state from using the new map in the 2026 midterm elections (naacpldf.org). Consequently, it highlights the ongoing struggle for fair representation for Black and Hispanic communities. Texas is home to the largest number of eligible Black voters in the entire country (pewresearch.org).
The judges ordered Texas to fall back to its 2021 congressional map for the next election cycle. This ensures that candidates will run under the previous district lines. The ruling was a significant victory for civil rights advocates. Groups like the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) celebrated the decision. They argued the map was a clear case of racial discrimination. Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the state will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (naacpldf.org). Therefore, this fight is far from over.
The Lines We Draw: Unpacking Racial Gerrymandering
To understand what is happening in Texas, we must first understand gerrymandering. There are two main types. Partisan gerrymandering aims to give one political party an unfair advantage (brennancenter.org). Racial gerrymandering, however, is when district lines are drawn to weaken the voting power of a racial or ethnic group. This practice is prohibited by the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment (brennancenter.org). In Texas, where race and political affiliation often overlap, these two forms of gerrymandering can look very similar. Governor Greg Abbott claimed the maps were redrawn for conservative voting preferences and for “no other reason” (naacpldf.org). The court, however, saw it differently.
The judges found “substantial evidence” that the gerrymandering was “much more than just politics” (naacpldf.org). Lawmakers used tactics known as “cracking” and “packing.” “Cracking” splits a community of voters across several districts, diluting their power (brennancenter.org). “Packing” concentrates as many of one group’s voters as possible into a single district. This creates a super-majority but weakens their influence in surrounding districts. For example, in Harris County, one Black opportunity district was eliminated, and its voters were absorbed into another. This tactic essentially halved their electoral influence. Moreover, the result of these tactics is a system where some votes count far more than others.
One Texan, One Vote? Not Exactly.
This chart shows the approximate number of residents it takes to elect one member of Congress under the proposed 2025 map (naacpldf.org).
A Century of Stolen Votes: The Voting Rights Act
Texas has been a battleground for redistricting for over a century (texastribune.org). In the early 20th century, the state often failed to agree on maps. This sometimes resulted in the entire congressional delegation being elected at-large. Into the 1950s, a single congressman represented Harris County, which had over one million people (texasstandard.org). The Civil Rights Era brought major changes with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The VRA outlawed discriminatory voting practices. It also established the “one person, one vote” principle through Supreme Court cases like *Reynolds v. Sims* (democracydocket.com).
This principle means districts must have roughly equal populations. It ensures every citizen has an equal chance to influence elections (democracydocket.com). The VRA had two key provisions for this fight. Section 2 prohibits any voting practice that denies the right to vote based on race (naacpldf.org). Section 5 required states with a history of discrimination, like Texas, to get federal approval before changing voting laws. This “preclearance” was a powerful tool. In fact, since the VRA’s adoption, Texas has faced findings of discrimination against Black or Hispanic voters in virtually every redistricting cycle (naacpldf.org).
A Gutted Law: The Legacy of Shelby County v. Holder
For decades, Section 5 of the VRA was the first line of defense against discriminatory maps. It was a proactive measure that stopped bad laws before they could harm voters (naacpldf.org). However, everything changed in 2013. The Supreme Court’s decision in *Shelby County v. Holder* gutted Section 5. The ruling struck down the formula used to determine which states needed preclearance. This eliminated the VRA’s most powerful tool for preventing discriminatory voting laws (brennancenter.org). The impact was immediate and devastating.
Without preclearance, states like Texas could enact new voting restrictions and maps without federal oversight. The burden shifted to civil rights groups. Now, they must challenge discriminatory laws in court after the damage has been done. This process is expensive, time-consuming, and reactive (brennancenter.org). Following the *Shelby County* decision, many states passed new restrictive laws. These included strict voter ID requirements and cuts to early voting. Furthermore, these changes disproportionately impact minority voters, making it harder for our communities to exercise their fundamental right to vote.
The New Texas Majority
People of color are the majority in Texas and are driving its growth, yet their representation is diluted by gerrymandering (naacpldf.org).
A Map Drawn in Bad Faith: The Blocked 2025 Plan
The recently blocked map was drawn by Texas Republicans. Reports indicate it was created at the request of President Donald Trump to secure more U.S. House seats (naacpldf.org). The map was enacted during an “unusual mid-decade redistricting” session. This means it happened outside the normal ten-year cycle that follows the U.S. Census (brennancenter.org). The process was rushed and lacked transparency. The new plan reduced the number of districts where minorities are a majority of voting-age citizens from 16 to 14. Additionally, it eliminated five of the nine “coalition” districts.
Coalition districts are areas where Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters together form a majority. They are crucial for representation in diverse areas where no single group holds a majority (naacpldf.org). Eliminating them makes it harder for communities of color to elect candidates who represent their interests. A recent court ruling in *Petteway v. Galveston County* has already made protecting these districts more difficult (naacpldf.org). The 2025 map was designed so that white voters would decide at least 26 of the state’s 38 congressional seats. This is despite white residents no longer being a majority of the population (naacpldf.org).
Victory in Court, But The War for Votes Isn’t Over
The panel that blocked the map was composed of judges appointed by Republican presidents Trump and Reagan, and Democratic president Obama (naacpldf.org). Their 2-1 decision underscores that the evidence of racial discrimination was overwhelming. This bipartisan rebuke challenges the idea that judicial rulings always follow party lines. It shows that judges can be compelled by facts and legal principles. However, the fight is not finished. Attorney General Ken Paxton plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, expressing confidence in its conservative majority (naacpldf.org).
Civil rights groups filed lawsuits and “amicus briefs” to challenge the map. An amicus brief is a document filed by a “friend of the court” to provide expertise or perspective (naacpldf.org). These groups, including the LDF and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, called the ruling a major win for democracy (lawyerscommittee.org). Still, the looming Supreme Court appeal means the future of fair representation in Texas remains uncertain. This case is another chapter in a long, ongoing struggle to ensure every voice is heard and every vote counts equally.
Population vs. Power: Eligible Black Voters
Understanding the difference between the total Black population and the number of eligible voters is key to analyzing electoral power (naacpldf.org).
About the Author
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.
