A coalition of voters in Texas initiated a federal lawsuit on Saturday against House Bill 4, the state’s newly adopted congressional map. The National Redistricting Foundation is backing the challenge, which alleges that state officials intentionally targeted majority-minority districts in urban areas, such as Houston and Dallas–Fort Worth, to strengthen Anglo representation across Texas’s congressional seats.
The legal filing, known as the Second Supplemental Complaint, targets Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson and Governor Greg Abbott. The coalition aims to prevent the implementation of HB 4 in upcoming elections, requesting a court ruling that declares the map unconstitutional under the Voting Rights Act and calls for a revised plan that preserves minority voting power.
The debate arises from the state’s choice to seek redistricting only four years after establishing a map following the last census. Governor Abbott had included redistricting on the agenda for a special session after the Justice Department raised concerns about certain districts perceived to be racially gerrymandered. Despite the state’s insistence that the earlier map was “blind to race,” Abbott indicated a preference for maps that avoid coalition districts, referencing a recent court decision that noted the Voting Rights Act does not mandate the creation of districts that combine various minority groups to form a majority.
The plaintiffs maintain that HB 4 exemplifies a racially motivated overhaul disguised as necessary adjustments. For instance, the complaint alleges that lawmakers in Harris County effectively dismantled two long-standing coalition districts, redistributing Black voters into a newly established seat and altering another to favor Anglo candidates. In Dallas County, the complaint alleges TX-30 was modified from a performing plurality-Black district into a slim Black-majority district, potentially diminishing representation for Latino voters in nearby areas.
Further challenges arise in Central Texas, where the plaintiffs argue that the changes have resulted in the loss of functioning opportunity districts for both Black and Latino voters. They highlight redistricting efforts along the Gulf Coast that transformed a majority Black-and-Latino district into one dominated by Anglo voters, suggesting that race rather than political affiliation has guided these alterations.
Beyond specific districts, the plaintiffs assert that there has been a significant shift in overall representation. The 2021 congressional map included 22 districts with an Anglo majority; however, under HB 4, this number may rise to 24, despite Anglo Texans representing approximately half of those eligible to vote in the state. The legal team also points to precise targets for racial demographics within districts, theorizing that these figures reveal an agenda that prioritized race over traditional considerations like geographic integrity and community boundaries.
The lawsuit articulates five primary claims. The first revolves around allegations of intentional racial discrimination, asserting that the state’s actions reflect a plan designed to undermine minority voting power. The second claim pertains to racial gerrymandering, focusing on whether racial factors played a predominant role in the redistricting process. The third claim addresses violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, emphasizing the lack of genuine opportunity districts for Latinos.
Additionally, the plaintiffs challenge the map’s fairness, suggesting it fails to account for significant population growth in Texas’s urban centers. Lastly, they argue that the typical legal deference shown to partisan motives should not apply in this scenario, given that lawmakers have opted to redraw district lines mid-decade.
Because the case addresses congressional apportionment, it will be processed by a panel of three judges, with any appeals going directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs seek a court order to halt HB 4 and direct a remedial plan to restore effective minority opportunity districts, with judicial oversight to ensure compliance with federal laws if necessary. The state is expected to argue that the new map is a legal response to evolving legal precedents and that any partisan considerations are unrelated to race—a position the plaintiffs dispute based on the specific criteria used in redistricting.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI, and the individuals, facts, circumstances, and overall story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by contacting email@publiclawlibrary.org.