Supreme Court Upholds Gerrymandered Texas Maps, Dealing a Blow to Voting Rights

The ruling will boost Republicans in the state through 2020 and perhaps beyond.

Gerrymandering activists gather outside the Supreme Court in March. Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Supreme Court dealt a big blow Monday to efforts to combat racial gerrymandering, approving Texas’ GOP-drawn political maps that had previously been found to discriminate intentionally against minority voters. 

In a 5-4 ruling, the court upheld the state’s congressional and legislative maps, with the exception of the map of one state legislative district, which the court struck down for reducing the voting power of minority groups. The court’s decision overturns the findings of the federal district court in Texas, which had found not only that the Legislature had discriminated against minorities in drawing certain districts, but also that the discrimination was an intentional effort to “ensure Anglo control.” But the court’s conservative majority disagreed, reversing the district court’s finding of intentional discrimination.

Justice Sonia Sotomoyor issued a blistering dissent, joined by the other liberal justices. This decision “comes at serious costs to our democracy,” she wrote. “It means that, after years of litigation and undeniable proof of intentional discrimination, minority voters in Texas—despite constituting a majority of the population within the State—will continue to be underrepresented in the political process.” 

The Texas case presented a quandary for the Supreme Court. In 2013, the court gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act, eliminating the ability of the federal government to block state and local election laws that discriminated against minorities. In that case, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the country had changed, and that the racism that had pervaded election practices since the civil rights movement had dissipated. Texas challenged that narrative. The state has lost nine racial discrimination voting cases since 2011, with multiple judges finding that the discrimination was intentional—including in the political maps at issue in this case.

The court’s decision Monday is in keeping with its 2013 ruling. Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the majority “blinds itself to the overwhelming factual record…to allow Texas to use electoral maps that, in design and effect, burden the rights of minority voters.”

This latest battle over Texas’ political maps began shortly after the last redistricting period following the 2010 census. Texas’ population had ballooned over the previous decade due to the state’s rapidly expanding minority population, and nearly 90 percent of Texas’ 4.3 million new residents were Latino or African American. As the fastest-growing state, Texas received four new congressional districts. But when the Republican-controlled Legislature drew political maps the following year, it created four new districts that were largely controlled by white voters. Latino and African American rights groups sued over the new maps.

A federal court blocked the 2011 maps and hastily put in place a tweaked version ahead of the 2012 elections for Congress and the state Legislature. These maps were intended to be temporary. But as soon as the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, Texas Republicans simply passed these temporary maps as the state’s new permanent maps. Minority rights groups, including the Texas branch of the NAACP and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, challenged these maps, arguing that they retained the bias of the blocked 2011 maps they were based on. Last year, a district court in San Antonio agreed, finding in two separate rulings that the 2011 and 2013 maps intentionally discriminated by weakening the voting power of black and Latino voters.

Conservative justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the majority in Monday’s ruling. In upholding Texas’ maps, he found fault in the district court’s analysis. “Whenever a challenger claims that a state law was enacted with discriminatory intent, the burden of proof lies with the challenger, not the State,” he wrote. “In redistricting cases, the ‘good faith of [the] state legislature must be presumed.'”  

The court’s ruling will allow the Republican-drawn maps to remain in place through the 2020 elections, until the next round of redistricting takes place following the census that year. But even then, it could shape the next decade’s maps: The court’s ruling will likely be seen as an open invitation for Republicans to continue to weaken the voting power of minority, Democratic-leaning voters in Texas and across the country. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate