Federal Court Rules Texas 2011 Redistricting Intentionally Discriminated Against Latino Voters

A federal court rules that the Texas Legislature’s 2011 redistricting plan for congressional districts discriminated against Latino voters in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. The decision finds that Texas deliberately carved up Latino communities and diluted Latino political strength even as the state’s Latino population rose to 38% of the total population.

Court Findings

The federal three-judge panel concludes that Texas violated the Voting Rights Act by systematically undermining Latino political representation in South Texas, West Texas, and the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The court finds that in Congressional Districts 23 (West Texas) and 26 (North Texas), the state created intentional racial gerrymanders in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling documents how Texas Republicans used race as the predominant factor in drawing district boundaries, deliberately diluting Latino voting power at precisely the moment when Latino population growth should have increased Latino representation. Between 2000 and 2010, Latinos accounted for 65% of Texas’s population growth, yet the redistricting plan decreased rather than increased Latino electoral influence.

Discrimination Tactics

The court identifies specific discriminatory tactics: “cracking” Latino communities by dividing them across multiple districts where they cannot elect candidates of their choice, and “packing” Latino voters into a small number of districts to minimize their influence elsewhere. In South Texas, historically Latino districts were redrawn to reduce Latino voting strength. In Dallas-Fort Worth and West Texas, rapidly growing Latino communities were carved up to prevent them from forming new majority-Latino districts.

The redistricting particularly targets Congressional District 23, a historically competitive district with a significant Latino population. Republicans redraw the district to replace Latino voters with Anglo voters, deliberately undermining the ability of Latino voters to elect their preferred candidates. This manipulation occurs despite the district’s designation under the Voting Rights Act as requiring special protection for Latino voting rights.

Context and Political Manipulation

The discrimination occurs immediately after the 2010 Census shows explosive Latino population growth in Texas. While Texas gains four new congressional seats due to population growth—growth driven overwhelmingly by Latino residents—the Republican-controlled legislature draws maps that give no additional representation to Latino communities. Instead, the new districts are designed to elect Anglo Republicans.

The ruling notes that Texas lawmakers had access to sophisticated demographic data showing exactly how their maps would impact Latino voters. The intentional nature of the discrimination is evident in internal communications and the precision with which Latino communities are divided. Republicans use detailed racial data to ensure that Latino voters are distributed in ways that minimize their political influence.

Supreme Court and Aftermath

The case reaches the Supreme Court multiple times. While the Supreme Court later upholds most of the 2013 maps (which adopted some of the 2011 boundaries) in a controversial 5-4 decision, the Court acknowledges discrimination in House District 90. However, the Court rules that plaintiffs failed to prove “bad faith” by the 2013 Legislature, despite lower courts’ findings that the 2013 maps were “tainted” by the intentional discrimination in the 2011 maps.

Federal courts continue to find intentional discrimination in Texas redistricting through subsequent litigation, but Texas avoids being placed back under federal preclearance supervision despite these findings.

Significance

The Texas redistricting case demonstrates how racial gerrymandering evolved after the 2010 Census and REDMAP strategy. Even with clear court findings of intentional discrimination against Latino voters, the political system struggles to provide effective remedies. The case shows how rapidly growing minority populations can be systematically disenfranchised through sophisticated redistricting techniques.

The ruling exposes the cynical manipulation of demographic change: the very population growth that gives Texas additional congressional seats is used as an opportunity to dilute that population’s political power. By the time courts strike down the discriminatory maps, years have passed and new elections have already occurred under the illegal districts.

The Texas case also illustrates the limitations of legal remedies for gerrymandering. Despite clear findings of intentional racial discrimination—one of the few types of gerrymandering the Supreme Court still allows courts to address—the practical impact of the ruling is limited. Republicans successfully delay and litigate, allowing discriminatory maps to remain in effect for multiple election cycles before being partially remedied.

The persistence of discrimination in Texas redistricting, even after court intervention, demonstrates how gerrymandering has become a tool for racial and ethnic disenfranchisement, particularly targeting the growing Latino population that threatens Republican political dominance in the state.