Democrats in Texas are currently accusing Republicans of using redistricting to gain a partisan advantage. This accusation, however, is both disingenuous and historically inaccurate.
When Democrats controlled the state in the 1990s, they engaged in the same tactics—so aggressively that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled their districts racially gerrymandered and unconstitutional.
In 1990, Democrat Ann Richards was elected governor of Texas, and the Democratic Party controlled the state legislature. This control allowed them to redraw congressional districts to maintain their political dominance.
State Senator Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Democrat, chaired the redistricting subcommittee and took charge of drafting the new maps. Her explicit goal was to create new minority-majority districts to favor the Democratic Party.
Johnson’s plan resulted in a majority-Hispanic district in Houston and a majority-Black district in Dallas—both aimed at consolidating long-term Democratic control.
This political maneuvering did not go unnoticed. The newly drawn districts, which included those represented by Democrats Martin Frost and John Wiley Bryant, became more homogeneous and less politically diverse.
Despite protests, the Texas Legislature passed Johnson’s plan in 1991. Critics, primarily Republicans, argued that the maps used flawed census data, potentially undercounting minority populations.
Yet, the U.S. Department of Justice granted preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, and the new districts were used in the 1992 elections.
In 1994, Republicans filed a lawsuit, claiming that several new districts—particularly Districts 18, 29, and 30—were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Constitution.
WATCH: Texas GOP candidate Jay Furman discusses how REDISTRICTING is CURRENTLY IMPACTING his campaign and EXPOSES the CORRUPT tactics used by DEMOCRATS.
A federal court panel agreed and ordered the state to redraw the congressional districts before the 1996 elections. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court in Bush v. Vera (1996), a landmark redistricting case.
The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that Texas Democrats had prioritized racial factors over traditional redistricting principles, such as compactness and contiguity.
The justices found that race had been the predominant factor in drawing the district lines, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As a result, 13 primary elections in 1996 were invalidated and required to be held again in special elections.
Despite this legal defeat, Democrats maintained control of Texas’s congressional delegation for the remainder of the decade, despite never winning a statewide popular vote again.
In light of this history, current complaints from Democrats about Republican-led redistricting in Texas are both hypocritical and factually dishonest.
Recently, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, implied that Republicans in Texas and Ohio are “violating the rules” by initiating redistricting outside the usual ten-year cycle.
At a public event in July, she stated, “We’re following the rules. We do redistricting every 10 years… but if there are other states violating the rules and trying to give themselves an advantage, all I’ll say is, I’m going to look at it closely.”
Governor Hochul’s statement disregards a basic truth: mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible.
While the Supreme Court mandates that states redraw districts every ten years to account for population changes from the decennial census, there is no prohibition against redistricting more frequently if allowed under state law.
Texas, like several other states, permits redistricting at any time the legislature chooses. Democrats used this flexibility when they were in power; now they object to Republicans exercising the same right.
It is essential to acknowledge that redistricting for purely partisan reasons is not ideal governance. However, redistricting itself is necessary to ensure electoral fairness.
Without it, population imbalances between districts could become so extreme that some Americans would be underrepresented, while others would wield disproportionate influence.
The real question is not whether redistricting should happen, but under what conditions and motivations.
In Texas’s case, redistricting may be justified for reasons beyond partisanship. Under the Biden administration, millions of illegal immigrants have entered the U.S., many settling in Texas.
Former President Biden moved to include non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, in the census count.
This policy inflated the population numbers of certain districts—particularly those near the southern border—distorting congressional representation.
When non-citizens are included in the census, the principle of “one person, one vote” is undermined. Districts with large illegal immigrant populations may have fewer eligible voters but still wield the same political power.
A new round of redistricting could restore fairness by ensuring that districts reflect the distribution of eligible voters, not just total population.
Democrats used redistricting to their advantage when they controlled Texas. Now Republicans are doing the same. To pretend that only one side plays this game is dishonest.
The real solution lies in structural reforms that apply equally to both parties or, at the very least, in the political courage to stop pretending that one party has the moral high ground when both have used the same playbook.
Read the full article here