Gov. Greg Abbott loomed over the hearing and the architect of the map emerged from the background.

By Gromer Jeffers Jr.
Dallas Morning News
https://www.dallasnews.com/

EL PASO — A federal hearing on the legality of Texas’ new congressional districts ended Friday, leaving the fate of the new map to a three-judge panel.

At issue is whether the new congressional map for 2026 — signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott — was gerrymandered with partisan or racial intent.

Though federal courts have allowed the map drawer latitude in crafting legislative lines for political gain, it’s unconstitutional to intentionally dilute the voting power of minority residents.

In August, the Legislature approved the new congressional map, designed for Republicans to flip five seats currently held by Democrats — one each in Dallas-Fort Worth, the Houston area, Central Texas, and South Texas and the Rio Grande Valley.

The GOP-driven plan, which had been stalled when House Democrats broke quorum in August to prevent passage of the bill, passed but along party lines during a second special session. The hearing revealed that most of the map-drawing process was done in private, with most lawmakers claiming not to know or making inconsistent statements about who drew the new boundaries.

The rare mid-decade redistricting effort came after President Donald Trump urged leaders to redraw congressional districts to cushion against potential setbacks in next year’s midterm elections. Historically, the party that controls the White House takes losses in midterms, and Trump wants the GOP to maintain control of Congress in order to continue his agenda.

Though Trump’s involvement suggests hardball politics, a July letter from the U.S. Department of Justice that warned Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton against protecting districts with a coalition of minority voters that form a majority injected race into the process. Plaintiff lawyers in the El Paso hearing say that letter and other actions prove the new map was racially gerrymandered.

They are seeking a temporary injunction against implementing the new congressional lines for the 2026 elections. They hope the three-judge panel will rule in their favor before the Dec. 8 deadline for candidates to file for the March primaries. If the panel grants an injunction, the primaries could be held under the previous congressional boundaries. In the past, courts have drawn interim maps for elections until the legal fight concluded.

In their closing arguments, lawyers for the plaintiffs said there was “purposeful intent” to dilute the voting strength of minority Texans.

“The Legislature abandoned any thought of complying with the VRA [Voting Rights Act],” said Nina Perales, the lead attorney for the League of United Latin American Citizens, the main plaintiff in the case.

Ryan Kercher, the chief of the attorney general’s Special Litigation Division, said the Legislature drew the congressional map to maximize Republican performance in elections — a partisan goal.

“When moving large numbers of Democrats, you will also move large numbers of people of color,” Kercher said during his closing argument, adding that ruling against the map would mean Republicans would have a disadvantage when political gerrymandering.

They would have to avoid targeting Democrats who are minorities, Kercher said.

“What that means is Democrats can have a partisan gerrymander and Republicans cannot,” he said.

The nine-day El Paso trial featured testimony from demographic experts and elected officials.

Here are some factors the judges are considering.

Abbott and DOJ letter

Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Republicans targeted minority voters in redrawing congressional districts to achieve their political goals. They say it was a plot that involved the Justice Department, the White House and Abbott.

The rare mid-decade redistricting, lawyers argue, was prompted by U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s July 7 letter to Abbott and Paxton. The letter stated that four congressional districts — three in the Houston area and one in Dallas-Fort Worth — violated the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution because they were drawn as “coalition districts” composed of a majority of non-white residents. Three of those districts have long been held by Black representatives and one by a Latino member.

Abbott used the Justice Department’s warning as a reason to add redistricting to a special legislative session. In his proclamation for the first special session, the governor said he was reacting “in light of constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.” The governor didn’t add the constitutional concerns reference when he added redistricting to a second special session.

Abbott also gave several media interviews, saying the Department of Justice letter prompted him to call the special session. During the hearing, plaintiffs’ lawyers replayed Abbott’s and Dhillon’s interviews discussing the need to end coalition districts.

Witnesses for the plaintiffs testified that Abbott and the Justice Department used race as a catalyst for developing the new map.

“It was meant to spur that action, whether people wanted to do it or not,” testified state Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, on the first day of the hearing.

State Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, said the “process started when the state of Texas received the letter from the Department of Justice.”

During the trial, it was revealed that the political operative who drew the map, Adam Kincaid of Virginia, saw a draft of the Justice Department letter before it was sent to Abbott and Paxton.

Kincaid, the executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust and creator of the 2021 Texas congressional and legislative maps, said under cross-examination that White House Chief of Staff James Blair showed him the letter during a West Wing meeting. Kincaid said he was on the phone with Abbott as he skimmed the letter.

A lawyer for Abbott convinced the three-judge panel that the governor’s conversations with Kincaid were privileged and could not be presented in court, so what he said to Abbott was not revealed.

Kincaid said he told Justice Department officials the letter was “dumb” and “unnecessary.”

“I told everyone it was a bad idea,” he said. “It wasn’t needed for Texas to draw the map.”

Paxton’s team, defending the map, sought to downplay the Justice Department letter. Paxton this summer responded to the letter by saying the Justice Department was wrong and their previous redistricting process was legal.

And during the trial, they reminded plaintiff witnesses of earlier comments made about the partisanship of the process.

West, defense lawyers reminded him, once called the redistricting effort a “naked power grab.”

West responded by testifying that “no other districts were targeted,” West said. “Why just minority districts?”

The map drawer: What did he know?

Kincaid was the defense’s star witness and the one plaintiffs sought to unravel. His performance on the stand could tilt the case.

On the stand, Kincaid said he drew “most” of the 2025 map that targeted the five congressional seats.

He quickly denied participation in a minority voting power dilution scheme.

“I don’t think it’s constitutional to draw maps based on race,” Kincaid testified.

Kincaid said his role in drawing the Texas map was part of a nationwide effort to produce more Republican congressional districts. He said he was first approached about mid-decade redistricting in Texas in March by Robin Armstrong, a Republican committeeman from Texas and former vice president of the Texas GOP.

Kincaid had several conversations with White House officials, including at least one using Signal, the private messaging app.

He spoke to Abbott at least three times as the map was being developed, though the details of those conversations were not given in court.

Beyond the legal fight over an injunction for the map, Kincaid’s testimony was a rare discussion of his role in drawing the map, which was unclear during this summer’s special session.

House Democrats contended they didn’t know who prepared the map. Even at the hearing, state Rep. Cody Vasut, R-Angleton and chairman of the House redistricting committee, said he wasn’t certain what Kincaid did with the map.

State Sen. Phil King, R-Weatherford and chairman of the Senate Redistricting Committee, acknowledged during Senate debate on the maps that Kincaid was involved but added few details.

King’s relationship with Kincaid was a topic during the hearing. He had trouble remembering how many meetings they had and didn’t confirm, until cross-examination, that state Sen. Adam Hinojosa, R-Corpus Christi, attended one of them.

Asking about his approach to the process, plaintiff lawyer Chad Dunn asked, “Are you familiar with the concept of willful blindness?”

King replied, “No.”

Kincaid insisted he drew the 2025 maps without racial data. To counter his claim, Gary Bledsoe, the Texas NAACP president and lawyer for U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas, said Kincaid didn’t need to pull up data to draw a discriminatory map.

During cross-examination, he pointed out that Kincaid was a veteran of drawing North Texas legislative maps. He knew the racial demographics of the districts he dismantled in the name of partisan politics.

“You were aware of the discrimination,” Bledsoe said during the cross-examination.

“I would not describe it as discrimination,” Kincaid shot back.

“I drew the map using political data from start to finish.”

North Texas looms large

The Dallas-Fort Worth area looms large in determining whether the federal panel will issue the injunction against the new congressional map.

Kincaid said part of his map strategy was overhauling North Texas in order to net Republicans one seat in Congress while fortifying other GOP districts.

Much of the overhaul occurred in Democratic strongholds.

“I completely transformed Texas 32,” Kincaid said. “I knew there was a Republican district in north Dallas County that we could have drawn [in 2021] that we didn’t draw.”

Kincaid took District 32, represented by U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Farmers Branch, and stretched it into the rural, Republican areas of East Texas. The map keeps Republican-leaning parts of northern Dallas County in the district and places Johnson’s home in nearby District 24, represented by Irving Republican Beth Van Duyne.

Kincaid testified that he packed District 30 and District 33 with Democrats.

“I took what became 30 and 33 and drew one mega-district,” he said. “I put all the Democrats in 30 and 33.”

District 33 was one of the districts mentioned in the Justice Department letter targeting coalition districts. It was drawn by the courts after the 2011 redistricting process. Fort Worth Democrat Marc Veasey, who is Black, has held the seat since 2013.

Kincaid sliced Tarrant County from the district, which is now anchored in Dallas County, with white Democrats being the dominant demographic group. Veasey’s home was placed in District 25, which jets out to West Texas. And about 250,000 Tarrant County residents were packed into District 30, represented by Crockett, who is now in District 33.

Minority voters now control only District 30, which went from 46% Black to just over 50% Black.

Crockett, Johnson and Veasey are awaiting the three-judge panel’s decision before making their next moves.

Johnson has said she’ll run in District 33 if the maps stand. Crockett, who now lives in the new District 33, is considering whether to run for that seat or in the District 30 seat she now holds. Crockett is also considering a statewide campaign, most likely Senate.

Veasey, who believes the new map will be struck down, could campaign for District 30, if Crockett opts to run elsewhere. The heavily Black district and the influx of Tarrant County voters would give him a launching point.

It all depends on what the federal panel decides. The judges can make a ruling at any point. Lawyers on both sides have until next Friday to file closing summaries and other documents.

The three-judge panel briefly discussed–in the event of an injunction against the map–what to do about the filing period and other candidate issues. They made no decisions.

Judges speculated that a ruling could come as early as two weeks, but could take longer if they write a comprehensive decision in preparation for a U.S. Supreme Court appeal.

The three-judge panel discussed–in the event of an injunction against the map–what to do about the filing period and other candidate issues.

The Howard University graduate and Chicago native has covered four presidential campaigns and written extensively about local, state and national politics. Before The News, he was a reporter at The Kansas City Star and The Chicago Defender. You can catch Gromer every Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on NBC 5’s Lone Star Politics.

This story, originally published in The Dallas Morning News, is reprinted as part of a collaborative partnership between The Dallas Morning News and Texas Metro News. The partnership seeks to boost coverage of Dallas’ communities of color, particularly in southern Dallas.