At an ACOM briefing, civil rights leaders and ethnic media examine how map changes in Texas and California may reshape minority representation.
Magazine, The Immigrant Experience
A most recent news briefing, opened with a matter-of-fact update: Texas had just advanced a redistricting plan aimed at adding five Republican congressional seats. The state legislature moved ahead without waiting for the next census, breaking with the traditional timeline where redistricting follows population shifts documented every ten years.
Typically, redistricting is a once-a-decade process, designed to reflect demographic change. But this cycle has taken a different turn. The Texas plan appears to follow calls from former President Donald Trump, who has pushed Republican-led states to redraw maps to secure additional congressional control. At least five other states are considering similar action. California responded by proposing “trigger maps” of its own—conditional redistricting that would take effect if Republican states move forward with their plans.
The ACOM briefing brought together leaders with legal and legislative experience to assess what’s unfolding and what it means for communities of color. The panel included Representative Gene Wu, Democratic leader in the Texas House of Representatives; Sarah Rohani, Assistant Counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund; Dr. Sam Wang, President of the Electoral Innovation Lab at Princeton University; and Thomas Sáenz, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF).
Representative Wu spoke first, providing a view from inside the Texas legislature. He described how the proposed maps would reshape Houston’s Congressional Districts 9 and 18—both historically Black and represented by leaders like Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green. These districts, he explained, are being redrawn to consolidate Black voters into a single district, a process known as “packing.” Instead of two representatives, the community could soon have just one. Latino communities are facing a different tactic. Their neighborhoods are being split across multiple districts, weakening their influence—a method often referred to as “cracking.”
Wu noted that when districts are manipulated in this way, the result isn’t just a shift in representation—it’s a breakdown in responsiveness. Lawmakers secure their seats and face less pressure to serve their communities. “If this is allowed to happen across the board,” he said, “then politicians will no longer listen to the people.”
Dr. Sam Wang provided legal and historical context. He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering is beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts. That means state laws and constitutions are now the main avenues for challenging unfair maps. In Texas, which has few legal guardrails, legislators have broad power to draw maps. In contrast, California uses an independent redistricting commission, although the new trigger map proposal would bypass that process if other states act first.
“The only way to change redistricting in California is for voters to approve it,” Wang said. That would happen through a ballot initiative this November. He also emphasized that redistricting is complex and often misunderstood. While gerrymandering receives national attention, state legislative maps—which impact more localized representation—are just as critical, especially for underrepresented communities.
Sarah Rohani focused on the Voting Rights Act, particularly the loss of preclearance since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Before that ruling, states with histories of discrimination had to submit redistricting plans for federal approval. Without that check, states like Alabama and Louisiana have moved forward with maps that courts later found to be racially discriminatory.
Rohani described how litigation has become the only tool left to contest unfair maps. In both Alabama and Louisiana, lawsuits led to court-ordered changes, including the creation of additional majority-Black districts. But these gains remain fragile. In Louisiana, for example, a revised map is now facing new legal challenges, with arguments pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thomas Sáenz closed the panel with a direct assessment: the current Texas map, drawn in 2021, already maximized Republican advantage. To draw five more seats, he said, lawmakers would have to go further and violate the Voting Rights Act. The growth of Latino and Black populations in Texas since 2020 makes that more likely, not less.
Sáenz also took issue with a letter from the state attorney general, which claims coalition districts—where different minority groups vote together to elect a representative—are illegal. That interpretation, he said, misstates the law and misleads the public.
The conversation also addressed the growing sense of voter disillusionment. If the rules can change at any time, what motivation remains to vote? Rohani pointed to turnout in 2024 elections in Alabama and Louisiana as evidence that fair maps can lead to meaningful participation. When voters believe their votes count, they show up.
The panel didn’t offer quick fixes. What they underscored was the need for vigilance, local engagement, and legal action. For ethnic media, the takeaway is clear: keep informing the public, especially those in communities most at risk of losing representation.
#Redistricting #VotingRights #EthnicMedia #ACOMBriefing #LatinoVote #BlackVoices #Democracy
