Five years ago, Galveston, Texas, redrew its district map in a way that eliminated the sole Democrat-held county seat. Under President Joe Biden, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the county in a bid to hold onto the single Democrat-held seat, and in doing so, gambled his party’s chances of controlling Congress.

And now, Democrats are poised to pay the price.

Texas Ignites Nationwide Redistricting Debate

Earlier this month Gov. Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to address key priorities, including the redrawing of congressional districts. The move followed a DOJ finding that four districts were unlawfully gerrymandered on racial grounds.

In a letter from Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, the DOJ contends that Texas’ current congressional maps violate the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. The DOJ points to the recent Petteway v. Galveston County ruling from the 5th Circuit, which held that the Voting Rights Act (VRA) does not require minority-coalition districts. Minority-coalition seats are voting districts where multiple racial or ethnic minorities are grouped together to form a majority of the population.

The DOJ argues the four districts in question were originally drawn to create minority-coalition seats (or were the result of coalition districts nearby) and therefore must be redrawn.

Biden DOJ Drew First Blood

Petteway v. Galveston County stems from a decision the Biden DOJ made in 2022 when it sued Galveston County, alleging that the county’s new district map violated the VRA.

According to the county’s legal brief, Galveston County is a majority white county, with black and Latino residents accounting for a combined 38.6 percent. Following the 2020 census, the county decided to redraw its district map to better reflect the growing population; between 2010 and 2020, the county reports, its population “increased by almost 60,000 people” and, more specifically, the “Hispanic population increased from 22% to 25%” while the black population “decreased from 14% to 12%,” according to the county’s brief.

Notably, the new map did not need pre-clearance from the DOJ since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Shelby County v. Holder invalidated the formula previously used to determine which jurisdictions must receive federal approval before changing congressional maps. Although Galveston County was still bound by other provisions of the VRA in drafting their new district map, a violation of the VRA would require evidence that a minority group had the potential to elect a representative of its choice in the district but that district lines thwarted that opportunity.

But Galveston County contended that neither the black nor Latino population was sufficiently large or compact enough to create a majority-Latino or majority-black district, a fact on which, as the District Court for the Southern District of Texas acknowledged before the county’s appeal to the 5th Circuit, “both parties agree.”

Therefore, the county argued that the new district map — which put the sole Democrat-held seat in jeopardy — was lawful. The county argued that the VRA only applies if a single minority group is compact and sufficiently sized to make up a majority in a district. The VRA does not require the creation of a majority-minority district if multiple racial and ethnic minorities need to be combined to constitute a majority of a district.

The DOJ sued the county, arguing the VRA does protect coalition districts.

Biden’s Bet Blows

While it first appeared that the Biden DOJ’s gamble paid off after a district court struck down the redistricting plan, the county appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. At first, a panel on the Fifth Circuit was inclined to side with the lower court due to a Fifth Circuit precedent from decades before — but chose to rehear the case en banc, according to The American Redistricting Project. The Fifth Circuit issued a decision on August 1, 2024 “reversing the district court’s findings and remanded the case to evaluate the plaintiffs’ racial gerrymandering and intentional discrimination claims.”

Under previous Supreme Court precedent (Thornburg v. Gingles), minority groups seeking to challenge a map must comprise a majority in a proposed legislative district, as explained by The Federalist Society. For years, minority groups had been allowed to combine to “cross the numeric fifty percent threshold,” according to The Federalist Society.

But Petteway v. Galveston County found that the VRA and Gingles “require a single racial minority group to compromise more than fifty percent of a proposed district…” according to The Federalist Society.

In Galveston, neither the black population nor Hispanic population surpassed the fifty percent threshold.

Congress Hangs In The Balance

The new maps for Texas were released on Wednesday. According to Forbes’ Mary Whitfield Roeloffs, the new maps “don’t significantly change the political make up of any Republican incumbents’ districts,” referencing the reporting of the Texas Tribune, “but they do change demographics.” Roeloffs stated that the changes would create two majority black districts “where there currently are none,” while adding two majority white districts and one majority Hispanic district. The maps could jeopardize Democrats’ hold on five congressional seats.

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling could also impact any coalition districts in Louisiana and Mississippi, though should the Supreme Court get involved in the redistricting fight, such coalition districts could soon not be required in all 50 states. In particular, general counsel for Galveston County in the DOJ lawsuit Paul Ready told The Federalist last year that had the Supreme Court become involved in the Galveston County case (and ruled in the county’s favor), several coalition districts could be upended.