Texas has called witnesses in El Paso for the Federal court case over the state's newly redrawn congressional map. The outcome of the trial determines if the map can be used in the 2026 midterm elections.
Plaintiffs, including a coalition of civil rights groups and minority voters, argue the new map intentionally weakens the electoral power of Black and Latino communities. Their lawsuit claims the redistricting violates the Constitution's equal protection clause by using race to undermine minority voting strength.
"They did not mess with the white-controlled Democratic districts," testified Houston political scientist Richard Murray. "What they went after aggressively were a half-dozen of the minority controlled districts which were, as I say, surgically assaulted and dismembered."
State officials argue that the map was drawn by partisan goals, not racial intent. Under Rucho v. Common Cause, partisan gerrymandering is legal, while racial gerrymandering is not.
Matt Berreto, a political science professor at UCLA, testified that the map was clearly drawn with race in mind.
"They achieved those partisan objectives by focusing on race," he argued. Barreto added that some of the new boundaries "split up neighborhood precincts," such as Houston's district 18, in ways that reduced the influence of minority voters.
Democratic lawmakers who testified last week described a closed, rushed process.
"We tried to work with our colleagues," said Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins (D). "They would not work with us so that we could do proper amendments."
Sen. Royce West (D) called the map "a bad faith, secretive effort" driven by political motives and pushed forward "at the request of President Donald Trump."
The court has given few signals about its leanings so far; however, a ruling is expected soon after the final hearing date on October 10.
The state will now begin presenting testimony from Republican lawmakers.
