Texas appeals ruling that Trump-urged voting map is racial gerrymandering : NPR

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott quickly appealed to the Supreme Court a ruling that redistricting passed by lawmakers at President Trump’s behest was based on racial gerrymandering.

“Any claim that these maps are discriminatory is absurd and is not supported by the testimony offered over ten days of hearings,” Abbott, a Republican, said in a statement. “This ruling is clearly erroneous and undermines the authority that the United States Constitution assigns to the Texas Legislature by imposing a different map by judicial edict.”

A three-judge panel earlier Tuesday had placed a temporary block on the map that Republican lawmakers approved this summer and ordered the state to use district maps from the last two elections.

The map that was overturned had been drawn up to give Republicans an advantage to flip up to five House seats into Democratic hands.

“No doubt, politics played a role in the making of Map 2025. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially manipulated Map 2025,” the majority of a three-judge panel wrote.

the panel heard a trial in the case in October. The plaintiffs included several civil rights groups and individuals.

The ruling is a blow to Trump and Republicans in a Nationwide redistricting race that it started in texas this summer.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who announced his candidacy for the United States Senate, also said he will appeal the ruling on the “Big Beautiful Map,” which he called “completely legal” in a statement.

Democrats praised the court ruling. “Race was always a determining factor and a determining factor in making things difficult for minority Texans,” Texas Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher said in an interview. “This map was drawn to make it harder for them to have an impact on the election.”

The court’s decision, with a 2-1 ruling, comes at a crucial time. Across the country, Trump is pressuring Republican state lawmakers to reshape congressional voting maps to maintain the party’s slim majority in the House and support his agenda.

Using their large Republican majority in the legislature, Texas lawmakers in August approved a map designed to help their party boost its ranks in the 2026 elections for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The process gained national attention when Democrats in the legislature fled the state for more two weeks to delay a vote and Republican leaders threatened to arrest them. Democrats argued that the new map weakened the voting power of Latino and black communities.

Redistricting in Texas also spurred California Democrats to act. this month California voters approved an initiative that allows for redistricting and could help Democrats win five seats in that state.

Was it partisan gerrymandering or racial gerrymandering?

Republicans in the Texas Legislature passed the map saying was designed to improve his party’s chances of winning five seats in Congress. They noted that unlike some states, the law in Texas does not prohibit redistricting for partisan advantage and that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts could not intervene when it was done.

But partisan gerrymandering can often overlap with racial gerrymandering, which is illegal. Opponents of the map argued in court that was intentionally diminished the voting power of minority communities.

The 160-page opinion was written by District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president. Their ruling was based on statements and contradictions in what Republican lawmakers said when the maps were approved.

A letter the Justice Department wrote to encourage redistricting ended up being the argument the court used to block the effort.

The judges noted that when Governor Abbott originally called MPs into a session to draw the map, cited a letter from the justice department officials who criticized districts that had majority non-white voting populations as “racial gerrymanders.” In other words, the letter implied that the districts as they stood gave nonwhite voters an advantage and that needed to be reversed.

Ultimately, Texas Republicans said the map was not intended to correct a racial bias but rather a partisan benefit.

That letter put politicians, who for years had denied the use of race in making maps, in “a difficult situation,” according to political scientist Josh Blank of the University of Texas at Austin, because “ultimately, they were saying opposite things.”

Brown’s ruling criticized the wording of the letter itself, which was sent by Harmeet Dhillon, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division. “It is challenging to analyze the Justice Department’s letter because it contains many factual, legal, and typographical errors,” Brown wrote.

“This decision is a rebuke to Donald Trump and, to some extent, a rebuke to Texas politicians,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston. “They believe the process was flawed and that the Justice Department was not credible in its legal arguments.”

Rep. Gene Wu, Democratic leader in the Texas House, said Tuesday’s ruling shows the courts still hold true to American principles.

“The removal of the maps is fundamentally a sign that the courts still believe in the founding principles of this country: the idea of ​​one man, one vote is absolute and must be upheld,” Wu said.

Throughout the country, Republicans have more options for redistricting seats in their own way than Democrats, in part because the GOP controls more state legislatures. States typically redistrict their districts at the beginning of the decade after the national census.

At Trump’s urging, lawmakers in Missouri and North Carolina approved new maps that could help the GOP gain a seat in each state. Ohio drew a map that analysts say gives Republicans a slight advantage in a few seats.

For Democrats, in addition to the five seats they could gain in California, a court-ordered redistricting in Utah could help Democrats gain a seat there. And Virginia Democrats have begun a process that could generate two seats in that state.

Blaise Gainey covers state politics for The Texas Newsroom. andres schneider covers politics and government for Houston Public Media.

Larry Kaplow with NPR contributed to this story.