History Repeats: Texas's Past of Redistricting and the Aftermath
By Isabella Oh
Texas's current redistricting efforts aren’t new, and similar events from 2003 might indicate how today’s efforts might play out
The ongoing, and in some cases completed, mid-decade redistricting efforts by various states throughout the United States at the current moment might seem novel, but mid-decade redistricting efforts have technically occurred in the past as well. What’s different about the new, heavily gerrymandered maps passed in Texas and other ongoing redistricting efforts throughout the country is that the current maps have already been approved, and these political maneuvers seek to edit and alter those approved maps. In the past, redistricting efforts have occurred due to disagreements over the initial district lines, and not at the behest of the executive. We’ll look at Texas's past experiences with mid-decade redistricting and what the ensuing events might imply about current redistricting.
THE CENSUS AND REDISTRICTING
Before redistricting can even begin, the Constitution mandates that a census be taken every ten years to count every person in the nation. Information from the census is used to reapportion members of the House amongst states and, in turn, redraw Congressional district lines. How those lines are redrawn depends on the state. Most states, including Texas, have state legislatures collectively redraw and approve new districts. A few states, including California, have adopted independent, nonpartisan commissions to redraw lines to prevent heavy gerrymandering. Thus, once census data is collected at the beginning of the decade, states redraw lines. Some states have deadlines by which lines must be redrawn for the following year’s elections.
The ability to challenge legislative apportionment and districts is preceded by a legacy of changes to the courts' involvement in such issues. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevents racial gerrymandering but not necessarily partisan gerrymandering. Prior to Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court had not involved itself in issues of redistricting, claiming it to be too political an issue and should be dealt with by political branches of government. However, in 1962, Charles Baker and other Tennessee citizens sued their state for not following state law to properly reapportion seats in the state’s Assembly and thus failed to account for changes in demographics and population. Lower courts dismissed the case, saying that legislative reapportionment was a political question. The Supreme Court reversed that decision and subsequently opened the doors for challenges to any legislative apportionment. The bounds of this jurisdiction were limited in 2019, when the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts did not have the ability to make judgments about issues of partisan gerrymandering, as they claimed there was no viable test by which to prove if something was gerrymandered in a partisan way or not. Such decisions would be relegated to state courts.
TEXAS WALKOUTS
After the 2000 census, Texas was unable to redraw its state House, state Senate, State Board of Education, or Congressional district lines. The Democratic-controlled Texas House and Republican-controlled Texas Senate could not come to an agreement on a new map. Texas state law requires that if the legislature cannot agree on a legislative and Board of Education map, then redistricting is referred to the Legislative Redistricting Board. If a Congressional district map is not drawn, and it is not taken up during a subsequent special session, the issue is referred to state or federal district courts. In this case, Congressional redistricting was referred to federal district courts after the governor failed to call for a special session. It is worth noting that in 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott called for a special session after facing pressure from the President to gerrymander Texas in Republicans’ favor to discuss various bills in addition to redistricting, yet another pointed use of gubernatorial powers to influence legislative outcomes. In 2002, with the court-drawn legislative districts, Texans elected a majority Republican state legislature for the first time in 130 years. That same year, the court-drawn Congressional districts produced a slim Democrat majority in House seats representing Texas. Given Texas's redistricting regulations, the Republican-controlled state legislature now had the power to redraw Congressional districts with a Republican majority, even though the court-drawn districts would hold until the next census and subsequent redistricting process in 2010.
In 2003, the Republican Texas legislature gathered to redraw Congressional districts, inciting scenes similar to those we saw this past summer. Just as in 2025, in May of 2003, 58 Texas House Democrats walked out of the capital and took refuge across state lines in Oklahoma, breaking quorum. The Texas attorney general at the time, Greg Abbott, now Texas's governor, issued an opinion allowing state troopers to arrest any missing legislators, but could not act until the legislators returned to Texas. However, the legislators returned to Texas less than a week after their departure, capitulating to pressure from Republican colleagues. In July, the Republican redistricting plan was eventually passed by the Texas House.
Later on, in August of 2003, it was Texas Senate Democrats’ turn to leave the state, as redistricting was now going through the Senate. 11 of the Senate’s 12 Democratic members left for New Mexico, where they held out until early September, when State Senator John Whitmire ignored his fellow Democrats and returned to Texas. Whitmire’s move brought the number of senators in the Texas capital the required 21 person quorum. Texas Republicans’ gerrymandered Congressional maps passed the legislature in October of 2003.
This redistricting, despite the court-drawn maps, was part of a larger scheme by then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay to gain a Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
Redistricting would bring the number of Texan Republican Congress members from 15 to 21, aiding in a strong Republican Congressional majority the following election cycle and Delay’s subsequent role as House Majority Leader from 2003 to 2005.
TEXAS AFTERMATH
Following the mid-decade redistricting efforts, various lawsuits were brought against the Texas state government, eventually landing in the Supreme Court. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 2006, revolved around Congressional District 23, which, prior to redistricting, had a Latino majority. The case also included District 25, which was drawn to offset District 23 by including two faraway Latino communities within it to form a Latino majority district. The court ruled that District 23 violated the Voting Rights Act for its dilution of the voting power of Latino populations and for creating a district in District 25 that was not compact due to the communities’ distance and because they were “disparate communities of interest.” The case also involved a challenge to Congressional District 24, near Dallas, which the court ruled did not violate the Voting Rights Act, for the Black community did not have a large enough voting population to possess sufficient electoral sway. The district courts in Texas redrew the five congressional districts in southwest Texas implicated by District 23’s violation of the Voting Rights Act, as ruled by the Supreme Court.
CONCLUSION
Mid-decade redistricting efforts are rare, but not new, especially in Texas. The outcome of 2003’s events and ensuing court cases indicates that 2025’s redistricting might face some challenges in the courts. On November 18, a federal court blocked Texas's heavily gerrymandered district map, with the three-judge panel voting 2-1 in favor of various civil rights groups, including the NAACP and League of United Latin American Citizens, that had sued the state to invalidate the map. The majority’s opinion stated that Texas had racially gerrymandered the map, violating the Voting Rights Act. In response, Governor Abbot said that the state would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. However, on December 4, 2025, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s previous blockage of Texas’s new maps. The ruling was applauded by Texas state officials, including Governor Greg Abbott, and denounced by leaders of those who sued, including the president of the N.A.A.C.P. The case was not brought to the Supreme Court through traditional avenues and was instead included as part of the court’s emergency docket and did not include oral arguments.
Regardless, as played out in 2003, it is apparent how a highly charged, partisan environment can push elected officials to make seemingly inconspicuous but otherwise consequential decisions that have outsized effects, and the courts increasingly permit such action to occur. As partisan gerrymandering continues to be permitted, such efforts like Texas's may remain fairly successful. Most Americans view partisan gerrymandering in an unfavorable light, indicating that redistricting could become a less partisan process. No matter, we have all watched as Texas's electoral history repeated itself right before our eyes.