Скачать или смотреть 25/12/04-A608-Abbott v League of United Latin American Citizens | Key Revelations

Texas Supreme Court Case Unveils Partisan Mapmaking Tactics

A recent Supreme Court case in Texas shed light on the contentious process of political mapmaking, revealing how partisan objectives were transformed into legal justifications, exacerbating deep national divisions.

The case began with Texas's Trump Administration-backed effort to increase Republican congressional seats before the 2026 midterms through mid-decade redistricting—unusual as it lacked a court order or legal mandate. Initial attempts failed when Governor Greg Abbott resisted, omitting redistricting from a special legislative session agenda in June 2025.

Facing political setbacks, the Trump Administration reframed its partisan goals as legal demands. On July 7, 2025, the DOJ's Civil Rights Division sent Texas officials a letter expressing "serious concerns" about so-called "coalition districts," incorrectly claiming they violated voting rights laws and "must be corrected." This shift allowed state officials to act under the guise of legal necessity.

Two days after receiving the DOJ letter, Abbott included redistricting in the special session agenda, citing constitutional concerns raised by the DOJ. The legislature promptly enacted a map securing five more Republican-leaning seats while meeting racial objectives demanded by the DOJ. Texas later abandoned the legal reasoning used to justify the DOJ letter, exposing the partisan nature of their strategy.

Challengers presented compelling numerical evidence demonstrating massive population shifts achieving thin racial targets. Mapmakers dismantled coalition districts and reconfigured three into new majority-Black or Hispanic districts with precise 50% targets, suggesting the use of racial data despite claims to the contrary.

The crux of the Supreme Court debate centered on how higher courts should review lower court factual findings and evidentiary standards. The majority disregarded established procedures by improperly substituting its judgment based on a cursory record review, rather than respecting lower court findings from extensive hearings with multiple witnesses.

Furthermore, the majority criticized challengers for lacking an alternative map achieving Texas's partisan goals without using race, ignoring substantial direct evidence of racial gerrymandering presented by the dissent. This highlighted a critical question regarding courts' ability to review potentially unconstitutional maps when legislatures manipulate passage timing to evade judicial intervention.

The case underscores how political tactics can exploit legal processes, emphasizing the ongoing challenge of ensuring fair representation amid partisan efforts to manipulate electoral outcomes through mapmaking.

The case leaves a critical question unanswered: If legislatures can shield potentially unconstitutional maps from review simply by controlling passage timing, what is the true power of courts to police unconstitutional gerrymandering?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...