(Texas Scorecard) – A federal three-judge panel is now considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction that would block Texas’ newly drawn 2025 congressional map ahead of the 2026 primary elections.
Plaintiffs allege Texas’ latest map constitutes both racial gerrymandering—a constitutional violation—and racial vote dilution under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The courtroom focus in recent weeks has concerned only the preliminary injunction, due to fast-approaching deadlines.
Constitutional Claims Take Center Stage
Preliminary injunctions are considered extreme measures that require high standards of proof. Plaintiffs must therefore convince the panel that the State intentionally discriminated on the basis of race, and that they are likely to win on the merits. Because racial vote dilution does not require intent, this claim was dropped from the preliminary injunction hearing.
Racial gerrymandering requires proving that racial data was considered with an intent to discriminate when drawing the maps. Racial vote dilution is very different, requiring evidence that districts protected by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—districts in which a racial minority group is able to elect their candidate of choice—were dismantled.
Naturally, one must racially discriminate when redistricting if they are to protect certain districts on account of their racial composition. These seemingly conflicting legal precedents make redistricting litigation exceptionally complex.
At present, the way these standards interact is that a mapmaker must draw his map blind to race, to conform with the Constitution. Only after a map has been created can experts analyze the impact it has on VRA-protected districts. It is often left to courts to decide whether a map is therefore VRA-compliant.
That being said, the racial vote dilution claim may not be relevant by the time the case reaches trial. Louisiana legislators re-drew the state’s congressional map in 2024 to create a second black-majority district. The action is now being challenged by a group of Louisiana voters in the Supreme Court as a violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an earlier opinion that there is an “intractable conflict” between current interpretations of Section 2 of the VRA and the Constitution. He also made clear that where the VRA breaches the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee, “the Constitution controls.”
Regardless of these intricacies, the VRA claims are wholly irrelevant to the preliminary injunction consideration at hand.
What’s Next
Should the panel grant the preliminary injunction, the State requests the opportunity to redraw the congressional map in a way that satisfies the Plaintiffs’ concerns. Plaintiffs prefer reverting to the 2021 map—the same map they had been alleging racial discrimination against for four years, but is more favorable to Democrats.
Should the preliminary injunction be denied, Plaintiffs want to proceed with their claims of both racial gerrymandering and racial vote dilution—suggesting January 2027 for this trial.
Both parties are requesting the preliminary injunction decision be made as soon as possible, ideally before the candidate filing period opens on Nov. 8 for the 2026 primaries. Plaintiffs also requested a ruling on the merits, as this would aid the U.S. Supreme Court in making its decision.
An appeal to the Supreme Court is expected regardless of the outcome.
Plaintiffs believe it would be appropriate for the preliminary injunction to be issued up until a week before Candidate filing closes on Dec. 8. The State believes it is already too late for the court to issue a preliminary injunction, as counties and candidates have already begun operating under the assumption that the 2025 map has been implemented.
Legal precedent set by the Purcell decision holds that courts should avoid making a decision that causes voter confusion directly preceding an election. Plaintiffs counter that the 2021 map should be seen as the legal status quo, and that the enactment of the 2025 map would cause more confusion.
Expectations
It is difficult to predict how a federal three-judge panel will rule on a redistricting case, given the complicated nature of redistricting litigation.
Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, appeared to question the Plaintiffs’ reasoning more often than he did the State’s. He also said it is apparent to him from watching television that “everybody” in Texas is assuming the 2025 map is already implemented—seemingly agreeing with the State’s argument that reverting to the 2021 map would cause voter confusion.
Smith is, for these reasons, expected to be a vote for the State. It is yet to be seen how influential Judge Smith can be on the other two judges, or what conclusions they may reach independently.
Judge David Guaderrama, an Obama appointee, was more even-handed throughout the hearings—making it difficult to tell which side he may favor.
Judge Jeffrey Brown, despite being a Trump appointee, has ruled against Republican redistricting efforts in the past because they were “mean-spirited.” Brown did not speak much during the early days of the hearing. When he did, it was more often against the State’s position.
In all, Plaintiffs only presented two witnesses who made claims that intentional racial discrimination took place during 2025 redistricting—disentangling it from being a natural byproduct of purely partisan redistricting, as is required for a preliminary injunction.
Both of these experts were later discredited for not considering the constraints Adam Kincaid—the mapmaker—was operating under, among other concerns.
While it is unclear what the three-judge panel will rule on the merits, Judge Smith’s concern over timeliness may very well carry over to the other judges.
Daily coverage from the hearings in El Paso can be found here.
If you or anyone you know has information regarding court cases, please contact our tip line: [email protected].