Appeals Court Upholds Texas County’s GOP Gerrymander

A federal appeals court upheld Tarrant County, Texas’ mid-decade gerrymander, dismissing claims that local Republicans intentionally discriminated against Black and Latino voters when they redrew county commissioner districts to cement partisan control.

In their decision Tuesday, the three-judge panel affirmed a lower court’s ruling denying an injunction that would have blocked the county from using its new map in upcoming elections. The court found that challengers had not shown the map was motivated by racial bias — even as it acknowledged the plan’s disproportionate impact on communities of color.

“Although we acknowledge that the disproportionate effect of the County’s redistricting on Black and Latino voters is relevant, we think its probative value is quite limited in this case,” Judge Don Willett, appointed by President Donald Trump, wrote for the court. “An obvious explanation for the disparity exists: race and partisanship are highly correlated in Tarrant County, and districting decisions driven by partisanship will often have disparate racial effects.”

The judges — all Republican appointees — said that partisan motives, not racial ones, explained Tarrant County’s decision to redraw its districts halfway through the decade.

The ruling is a major blow for minority voters in Tarrant County, home to Fort Worth and one of the most racially diverse regions in Texas. 

Plaintiffs had argued that county leaders intentionally sought to weaken the political power of minority communities after Democrats gained a second seat on the Commissioners Court.

The lawsuit challenged a map adopted last year by the GOP-controlled court that dismantled the only precinct where minority voters could elect a candidate of their choice. It was drawn by Republican mapmaker Adam Kincaid and the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a group known for efforts to restrict voting access. Kincaid also drew the new congressional map passed by Texas this summer, which is being challenged in court as a racial gerrymander.

“The other departures are just as easily explained by a partisan motive as a racial motive; partisan gerrymandering is unlikely to be popular, so it is understandable that a legislature engaging in it would want to avoid an extensive, public process,” the court found. “While that may not be consistent with the best practices of good government, it is hardly suggestive of racial motivation.”

The court acknowledged that the process was irregular — rushed, opaque and occurring mid-decade — but ultimately excused those procedural flaws as signs of political, not racial, intent.

The opinion went further, invoking judicial restraint to limit the role of federal courts in policing gerrymanders.

“Unless a plaintiff proves racial discrimination, federal courts must stay their hand, mindful that the task of redistricting is best left to… legislatures, elected by the people and as capable as the courts, if not more so, in balancing the myriad factors and traditions in legitimate districting policies,” the judges concluded. “The Challengers’ viewpoint-discrimination claim is nonjusticiable.”

The Fifth Circuit also brushed aside voters’ argument that the new lines will delay their ability to cast ballots for county commissioners, writing: “The Constitution protects the right to vote, not the right to vote on a particular timetable.”

The ruling means the GOP-drawn map will remain in place for 2026. The plaintiffs may still pursue their claims under the Voting Rights Act, but the Supreme Court’s recent direction on voting rights signals steep odds ahead.