Case Summary

In 2006, the Texas Republican Party redistricted the state in the middle of the decade to reduce the power of Latino voters. LULAC sued, and the Supreme Court ultimately held that key parts of Texas’s plan were unconstitutional because they engaged in racial discrimination.

“Our battle against Gov. Perry’s unconstitutional and racist redistricting plan in Texas was a great victory for Latino voting rights in Texas and nationwide,” reflected past LULAC National President Hector Flores.“As Gov. Abbott rams a new mid-decade redistricting plan through the Texas legislature to muffle the voice of Latinos, our victory in LULAC v. Perry shows that we can win these fights.”

In the early 2000s, the Republican Party finally managed to take control of the governorship and state legislature from the Democrats. The state government moved swiftly to gerrymander Texas’s congressional districts to weaken the voting power of Latinos and of Democrats. In 200X, Texas proposed new voting maps mid-cycle, without waiting for the new census.

LULAC immediately sued, challenging the new maps for unconstitutionally discriminating against Latinos and also for unconstitutionally gerrymandering the map to favor the Republican Party. After setbacks in the lower courts, LULAC appealed to the Supreme Court.

LULAC won on its claim that Texas’s new maps unconstitutionally engaged in racial discrimination against Latinos. Though the Supreme Court was unwilling to invalidate the partisan gerrymander, it held that in District 23, Texas had unconstitutionally destroyed a Latino opportunity district. That victory has served as a bulwark for Latino voting rights amidst ever-more-extreme gerrymanders from the Texas legislature.

Legal Documents

12/12/2006 Opinion

Further Reading

The New York Times: Supreme Court to Hear Dispute on Texas Redistricting

The Congressional Research Service: Congressional Redistricting: A Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Perry