2010s Timeline PDF
Texas Senate Redistricting
82nd Legislative Session
The 82nd Legislature, Regular Session, passed a senate redistricting plan (PLANS148) in May 2011, which was signed by the governor.

Texas v. United States ‐ Preclearance Lawsuit
In July 2011, the Texas attorney general petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (Texas v. United States) seeking to preclear the legislatively enacted state senate plan (PLANS148). The D.C. district court heard the case in January 2012 and issued an opinion denying Texas preclearance in August 2012 on the grounds that the state failed to demonstrate that the plan was not enacted with discriminatory purpose. The state appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in a different case ruled that the coverage formula used to determine which states and local governments fall under the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional (Shelby County v. Holder). The Supreme Court then vacated the D.C. district court's judgment denying preclearance of the legislatively enacted senate plan and sent the case back for further consideration in light of the Shelby County ruling. The D.C. district court found that Texas' suit for preclearance was mooted by Shelby County and filed a memorandum and order to dismiss the suit in December 2013.

Davis v. Perry ‐ Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Lawsuit
In September 2011, plaintiffs filed Davis v. Perry in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, alleging that the plan enacted by the legislature (PLANS148) diluted minority voting strength in the Dallas and Tarrant County area and violated the one-person, one-vote rule. A three‐judge panel was appointed to hear the case as provided by federal law. Because the legislature's senate plan had not been precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the San Antonio court ordered an interim state senate plan (PLANS164) in November 2011. The state requested a stay on the use of the court's interim plan, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted in December 2011. After hearing Davis v. Perry in January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the district court's order implementing an interim plan on the grounds that the court's interim plan unnecessarily deviated from the legislatively enacted plan and remanded the case for further proceedings. In February 2012, the district court in San Antonio ordered a new interim state senate plan (PLANS172) that more closely followed the legislature's plan for the 2012 elections.

83rd Legislative Session
In June 2013, the 83rd Legislature, 1st Called Session, passed S.B. 2 enacting the court‐ordered interim senate plan (PLANS172) as the permanent senate plan. Plaintiffs and the state advised the San Antonio court that all parties in the federal case agreed to the newly enacted legislative plan as the final remedial senate plan, and the court entered a final judgment on the state senate map in September 2013.

Evenwel v. Perry ‐ One‐Person, One‐Vote Challenge
In April 2014, the Project on Fair Representation filed Evenwel v. Perry, challenging Texas Senate redistricting plan enacted by the legislature in 2013 (PLANS172). The lawsuit sought to enjoin Texas from conducting further state senate elections under the plan and asked the court to require the legislature to reapportion the senate districts to conform to the plaintiffs' preferred construction of the one‐person, one‐vote requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment. The suit argued that Texas' state senate districts must be drawn with approximately equal numbers of eligible voters rather than approximately equal total population. In November 2014, a three‐judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, dismissed the plaintiffs' challenge for failing to state a valid claim constituting a recognized violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 4, 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's dismissal, ruling that states and localities may comply with the one‐person, one‐vote principle by adopting districts with equal total populations. The court left unresolved the question whether a state may draw districts to equalize voter‐eligible population rather than total population to satisfy the one‐person, one‐vote principle.

Texas House Redistricting
82nd Legislative Session
The 82nd Legislature, Regular Session, passed a house redistricting plan (PLANH283) in May 2011, which was signed by the governor.

Texas v. United States ‐ Preclearance Lawsuit
The Texas attorney general petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (Texas v. United States) validating the legislatively enacted state house plan (PLANH283) in July 2011. The D.C. district court heard the case in January 2012 and, in August, issued an opinion denying Texas preclearance. The state appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. In summer 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the coverage formula used to determine which states and local governments fall under the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional (Shelby County v. Holder). The court then vacated the D.C. district court's judgment denying preclearance of the legislatively enacted house plan and sent the case back for further consideration in light of the Shelby County ruling. The D.C. district court found that Texas' claims were mooted by Shelby County and filed a memorandum and order to dismiss Texas' claims in December 2013.

Perez v. Perry ‐ Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Lawsuit
In September 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, started hearings on the consolidated federal lawsuits in Perez v. Perry and ordered an interim state house plan (PLANH302) in November. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the state's request for a stay on the use of the interim state house plan and, after hearing the case in January 2012, vacated the San Antonio court's order implementing the interim plan and remanded the case for further proceedings. In February, the San Antonio court ordered a new interim state house plan (PLANH309) for the 2012 elections.
In September 2013, the San Antonio court denied a request by the state to dismiss claims about the 2011 house map on grounds of mootness. The court also concluded that a full, fair, and final review of all issues before the court could not be resolved in time for the 2014 elections and ordered the 2013‐enacted Texas house map (PLANH358) to be used as the interim plan for the 2014 elections. The court did not make any changes to the election schedule for 2014.
In July 2014, the San Antonio court heard evidence in Perez v. Perry regarding the 2011 legislatively enacted house plan (PLANH283). A hearing on the 2013‐enacted state house plan (PLANH358) will be scheduled at a later date.

83rd Legislative Session
In June 2013, the 83rd Legislature, 1st Called Session, passed S.B. 3, a new house plan (PLANH358) that made changes to 14 districts in Dallas, Harris, Tarrant, and Webb Counties. Other districts in the state were identical to the districts in the interim state house plan (PLANH309) ordered by the San Antonio court.

Congressional Redistricting
Based on the 2010 federal decennial census, Texas was apportioned 36 congressional districts, an increase from 32 districts apportioned to Texas under the 2000 census.

82nd Legislative Session
The Regular Session of the 82nd Legislature adjourned without adopting a congressional redistricting bill. The 82nd Legislature, 1st Called Session, passed a congressional redistricting bill in June 2011 (PLANC185).

Texas v. United States ‐ Preclearance Lawsuit
In July 2011, the Texas attorney general petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (Texas v. United States) seeking preclearance of the legislatively enacted U.S. congressional plan (PLANC185) in July 2011. A three‐judge panel of the D.C. district court heard the case in January 2012 and, in August, issued an opinion denying Texas preclearance. on the grounds that the state failed to demonstrate that the plan would not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters and was not enacted with a discriminatory purpose. The state appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Texas appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court in a case out of Alabama ruled that the coverage formula used to determine which states and local governments fall under the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional (Shelby County v. Holder). The Supreme Court then vacated the D.C. district court's judgment denying preclearance of Texas' legislatively enacted congressional plan and sent the case back for further consideration in light of the Shelby County ruling. The D.C. district court found that Texas' suit to obtain preclearance of the plan was mooted by Shelby County and dismissed the suit in December 2013.

Perez v. Perry ‐ Section 2 Voting Rights Act and 14th Amendment Lawsuit
Following enactment of the congressional plan (PLANC185) in 2011, several lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Texas challenging the plan under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and asserting several claims under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution. These suits were consolidated before a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, under the name Perez v. Perry. Because the legislatively enacted plan had not been precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the court ordered an interim congressional plan (PLANC220) in November 2011. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the state's request for a stay on the use of the district court's interim congressional plan and, after hearing the case in January 2012, vacated the San Antonio court's order implementing the interim congressional plan on the grounds that the plan appeared to deviate unnecessarily from the legislature's plan rather than confining its changes to those that the district court determined were reasonably necessary to comply with the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. In February, the San Antonio district court ordered a new interim congressional plan (PLANC235) for the 2012 elections that more closely followed the legislature's plans. The court‐ordered plan made changes to address what the court determined were "not insubstantial" voting rights claims in the Dallas‐Fort Worth area, the Houston area, and in District 23 of Bexar County and adjacent West Texas counties. The court set aside additional claims by the plaintiffs involving Dallas‐Fort Worth, Houston, and Travis County‐Central Texas. The 2012 elections for Congress were ultimately held using the new interim plan. The primary and runoff elections for 2012 were postponed to May and July due to the delay attributable to the court establishing the interim congressional plan.

83rd Legislative Session
The 83rd Legislature, 1st Called Session, passed a congressional redistricting bill, S.B. 4, adopting the court‐ordered interim congressional plan (PLANC235) as the permanent congressional plan in June 2013.

In September 2013, the San Antonio district court denied a request by the state to dismiss claims challenging the 2011 congressional map on grounds of mootness. The court also concluded that a full, fair, and final review of all issues before the court could not be resolved in time for the 2014 elections and ordered the congressional map (PLANC235) enacted in 2013 to be used as the interim plan for the 2014 elections. The court did not make any changes to the election schedule for 2014.

Perez v. Perry Litigation Continues ‐ 2011 Congressional Plan
In August 2014, the San Antonio district court heard evidence in Perez v. Perry regarding the 2011 legislatively enacted congressional plan (PLANC185). After extensive hearings and expert testimony, the court found evidence of intentional dilution of minority voting opportunity as well as racial gerrymandering in the Dallas‐Fort Worth area, and in South Texas/Bexar County. The court rejected numerous other claims by the various plaintiffs, including claims that districts in the Houston area were drawn with discriminatory purpose, were racially gerrymandered, or violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for failing to draw additional minority coalition districts.

Perez v. Perry Litigation Continues ‐ 2013 Congressional Plan
In July 2017, the San Antonio district court conducted a trial regarding the pending claims challenging the 2013 congressional plan (PLANC235) adopted as an interim plan by the court in 2012 and enacted by the Legislature in June 2013. These included claims that congressional District 23 as remedied in the 2013 plan was still not an effective Hispanic district, that District 27 resulted in dilution of the Hispanic vote in Nueces County, that new District 35 in Central Texas was a racial gerrymander that intentionally eliminated a minority influence or crossover district in the Travis County area, and that additional minority coalition districts should have been created in the Dallas-Fort Worth and Harris County regions.

On August 15, 2017, the district court issued an extensive ruling on the legal challenges to PLANC235. The court determined that there was insufficient evidence of minority coalition voting or discriminatory intent in the Dallas and Harris County challenges to support additional findings of vote dilution in that area, and that the changes made to District 23 in the 2013 plan were sufficient to remedy the vote dilution violations found in the initial 2011 legislative plan. However, the court determined that the plan was enacted with discriminatory intent because it retained certain discriminatory districts present in the legislature's 2011 plan. Specifically, the court determined District 25 in Central Texas and District 27 in the Nueces County region were enacted with discriminatory purpose in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The district court ordered the state to remedy the violations before the 2018 elections, but the ruling was stayed pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Abbott v. Perez ‐ Ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court
The State of Texas appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court the ruling of the San Antonio district court that the 2013 legislative plan for Congress (PLANC235) violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it was the product of intentional vote dilution of minority voters and, in some area, of racial gerrymandering. In June 2018, the Supreme Court by a vote of 5‐4 upheld PLANC235. (585 U.S.___(2018)). PLANC235 was identical to the interim plan that the San Antonio district court had drawn to address various asserted voting rights violations in the legislature's original 2011 congressional plan (PLANC185) that the district court considered to be "not insubstantial" pending a full trial on the merits of that plan. The majority opinion held that, when the legislature enacted the 2012 court-ordered interim plan as the state's permanent congressional plan in 2013, it presumably acted in good faith, so that the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove that the 2013 enactment was itself the product of intentional discrimination. The district court had, according to the Supreme Court, improperly attributed elements of intentional discrimination in the 2011 plan to the legislature's 2013 reenactment of the district court's interim plan. The Supreme Court also determined that the plaintiffs had not shown that an additional Hispanic opportunity district could have been created in the Nueces County or South Texas region. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the district court in its entirety, effectively upholding the 2013 legislative plan.

Abbott v. Perez ‐ Final Proceedings in U.S. District Court
On remand of the case to the federal district court in San Antonio, the district court heard arguments from the plaintiffs that the district court's findings of intentional vote dilution in the legislature's 2011 state house and congressional plans, together with other recent judicial findings of racial discrimination by the state and local jurisdictions, warranted the court to require the state to seek federal preclearance of any redistricting plans enacted after the 2020 census is released pursuant to Section 3(c). On September 24, 2019, the three-judge redistricting panel in Perez v. Abbott was dissolved, effectively ending the substantive litigation. The dissolution order left the outstanding issue of attorney fees sought by various plaintiffs to be determined by U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, with whom the case was orginally filed.

State Board of Education Redistricting
The 82nd Legislature, Regular Session, passed the State Board of Education redistricting bill, H.B. 600 (PLANE120), on May 5, 2011. On September 22, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted its approval for the plan under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

2000s Timeline PDF
Texas Senate and Texas House Redistricting
The regular session of the 77th Legislature adjourned on May 28, 2001, without adopting a senate, house, congressional, or State Board of Education redistricting plan. The Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB) convened on June 6 and adopted plans for the state senate (PLAN01188S) and the state house (PLAN01289H) on July 24. The plans were submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

A Travis County state district court considered suits against the LRB's house and senate redistricting plans before deferring to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The DOJ precleared the LRB senate plan on October 15, and on November 28 the federal district court upheld the LRB senate plan.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas also held hearings on various legal challenges to the LRB house redistricting plan on November 13‐15. The DOJ denied preclearance of the LRB house plan on November 16, and on November 28 the federal district court put in place a new house district plan (PLAN01369H, which modified the LRB house plan) to address the DOJ's objections.

Congressional Redistricting
In December 2000, three legal challenges were filed in Travis County district court regarding congressional redistricting in Texas. The regular session of the 77th Legislature adjourned on May 28, 2001, without adopting a congressional plan, and the governor did not call a special session to consider congressional redistricting. On September 17, 2001, the Travis County district court began hearing the Del Rio v. Perry and Cotera v. Perry congressional cases, and on October 10, the court issued an order adopting new congressional districts (PLAN01089C). This plan was vacated by the Texas Supreme Court on October 19 (Del Rio v. Perry) because the state district court's time had expired, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas began proceedings on the congressional case of Balderas v. State of Texas on October 22. On November 14, the federal district court issued an order adopting congressional districts (PLAN01151C) for the 2002 elections.

The 78th Legislature considered congressional redistricting in its regular session and three subsequent called sessions. On October 12, 2003, in the third called session, the 78th Legislature adopted PLAN01374C. The plan was submitted to the DOJ on October 20, 2003, and was precleared on December 19, 2003.

Following the passage of the legislature's congressional plan, four federal court actions, consolidated as Session v. Perry, were filed in mid‐October 2003 seeking relief against the plan. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas heard the case in late December and, on January 6, 2004, upheld the validity of the congressional plan enacted by the Texas Legislature. The plaintiffs appealed the federal district court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On October 18, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Session v. Perry, involving the Texas congressional plan, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for further consideration in light of the June 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Vieth v. Jubelirer, a partisan gerrymandering case from Pennsylvania. The district court heard oral arguments on January 21, 2005, and on January 25 issued a decision in the remand of Session v. Perry adhering to the court's earlier judgment that there was no basis to declare the plan invalid. On December 12, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court set the 2003 challenge to Texas' redrawing of congressional districts (now styled as LULAC v. Perry) for oral argument before the court. Argument was heard on March 6, 2006, and on June 28, the court issued a decision finding that the district court's judgment was partly correct and partly in error, and returned the case to the district court for further action. The U.S. Supreme Court found that congressional District 23 violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the creation of a new District 25 did not remedy the problem.

On August 4, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an opinion in the remanded LULAC v. Perry case ordering changes to five congressional districts (PLAN01438C) to address the Voting Rights Act violation. Special elections for these five districts were held concurrent with the November 2006 general election. The five court‐ordered districts from PLAN01438C were incorporated into the legislature's 2003 plan (PLAN01374C) to create a statewide plan, PLAN01440C.

State Board of Education Redistricting
The regular session of the 77th Legislature adjourned on May 28, 2001, without adopting a State Board of Education (SBOE) redistricting plan. Legal challenges were filed against the old SBOE districts, and on November 2, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order adopting new SBOE districts based on the 2000 federal census (PLAN01018E) for the 2002 elections.

1990s Timeline PDF
Texas Senate and Texas House Redistricting
The regular session of the 72nd Legislature passed bills redrawing senate and house district boundaries in the 1991 regular session, which were signed by the governor.

During 1991, suits were filed in state district court and federal district court asserting various voting rights violations against the adopted senate and house redistricting plans. After a series of state and federal court actions and the adoption of new house and senate plans in a January 1992 special session, the 1992 house and senate elections were ultimately conducted under federal court‐ordered plans that changed 30 of the 31 senate districts and 37 of the 150 house districts that had been adopted by the legislature during the 1991 regular session.

The 1994 elections were held under districts enacted by the legislature in the January 1992 special session. The senate districts were significantly different from the court‐ordered districts used for the 1992 election. The legislature's house districts differed only slightly from the 1992 court-ordered districts.

On January 25, 1995, Thomas v. Bush was filed in federal court challenging 13 senate districts and 54 house districts as unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered. On September 15, 1995, the court ordered an agreed settlement under which 8 senate districts and 36 house districts were changed to address the alleged gerrymanders, the staggered senate terms drawn by lot in January 1993 were allowed to remain in effect, and the one‐year prior residency requirement was waived for the changed districts so that a candidate could run either in the same numbered district in which the candidate resided under the prior plan or in the new district in which the candidate resided. During the 1997 regular session, the Texas Legislature enacted without change the senate districts approved in the 1995 Thomas v. Bush settlement. That plan was subsequently used for the 1998 elections. The legislature also enacted two bills affecting state house districts, one which approved the state house districts in the 1995 Thomas v. Bush settlement with additional minor changes to six districts, and the other which made minor changes to eight other house districts. The U.S. Department of Justice precleared the changes to the house districts, and the house plan incorporating those changes was used for the 1998 elections. Court actions in the summer of 1997 effectively brought an end to required action by the legislature on 1991 redistricting.

Congressional Redistricting
Under the 1990 federal census, Texas was apportioned 3 new congressional districts, for a total of 30. The 72nd Legislature adjourned in May 1991 without adopting a congressional plan during the regular session, but did enact a new plan in the 2nd Called Session in August.

During early 1991, suits were filed in state district court and federal district court asserting various voting rights violations against the former unmodified congressional districts. After the August special session and a number of legal actions, the 1992 congressional district elections were held under the plan enacted by the legislature in the August special session.

On January 26, 1994, a suit was filed in federal district court in Houston challenging the Texas congressional districts as unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered under the framework of the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases Shaw v. Reno and Hays v. Louisiana. In the summer of 1994, the court held three of the districts unconstitutional. The state appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and proceeded to conduct the 1996 primaries under the state's plan. In June 1996, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's decision. The district court voided the results of the 1996 primary elections in 13 of the state's 30 congressional districts and ordered a special election to be held in those 13 districts concurrent with the November 1996 general election using an interim plan drawn by the court. The district court gave the legislature until June 30, 1997, to enact a permanent plan, but the 75th Legislature did not adopt a plan within that time. On September 15, 1997, the court dismissed all pending motions and ordered the court‐drawn plan into effect for the 1998 congressional elections.

State Board of Education Redistricting
The 72nd Legislature adjourned in May 1991 without adopting a State Board of Education (SBOE) redistricting plan in the regular session, but enacted a new plan in the 2nd Called Session in August 1991.

During 1991, suits were filed in state district court and federal district court asserting various voting rights violations against the former unmodified SBOE districts. After the August special session and a number of legal actions, the 1992 SBOE elections were held under the plan enacted by the legislature in the August special session.

1980s Timeline PDF
Texas Senate Redistricting
The 67th Legislature in regular session passed a senate redistricting plan, but the plan was vetoed by the governor. The Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB) convened on August 30, 1981, to consider senate redistricting and adopted a new senate plan on October 28. The plan was submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for preclearance.

In October, Upham v. White was filed in state district court, maintaining that the LRB's senate plan should have been drawn on the basis of "qualified electors" as then required by the Texas Constitution and that population growth patterns should have been taken into consideration. The court rejected the arguments, upheld the senate plan, and did not rule specifically on the qualified electors provision of the constitution. No opinion was published.

A consolidation of suits against the LRB's senate and house plans, Terrazas v. Clements, was filed in federal court in late 1981. The suit claimed that the senate plan violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by diluting the voting strength of blacks, Hispanics, and Republicans and by ignoring communities of interest throughout the state.

On January 25, 1982, the DOJ issued an objection to the LRB's senate redistricting plan. The federal court extended the candidate filing deadline for the 1982 primary, adopted the LRB's senate plan without change for use in the 1982 elections only, and directed the legislature to adopt permanent plans by September 1, 1983.

On May 16, 1983, the senate adopted a resolution petitioning the court to adopt a specified plan changing eight districts. The purpose of the proposal was to avoid a new senate reapportionment for the 1984 elections that would have terminated the staggered terms of the senators elected in 1982 and required the election of an entire senate in 1984. No objections were made to the plan by the DOJ or other groups. In December 1983, the federal district court in Terrazas ordered the proposed senate district plan into effect for the 1984 elections.

Texas House Redistricting
The regular session of the 67th Legislature passed a house redistricting plan, which was signed by the governor. On August 31, 1981, the Texas Supreme Court overturned the house redistricting plan because it split counties in violation of the Texas Constitution, and the LRB adopted a new house plan on October 28. The LRB house plan was submitted to the DOJ for preclearance.

The consolidated suits against the LRB's senate and house plans, Terrazas v. Clements, claimed that the house plan violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, diluted the voting strength of racial minorities, interfered with the First Amendment rights of Texas Republicans to associate politically, impermissibly divided communities of interest, and overpopulated certain districts that were predicted to grow substantially, leading to underrepresentation of people in those areas.

On January 25, 1982, the DOJ issued an objection to the LRB's house redistricting plan. The federal court extended the candidate filing deadline for the 1982 primary, adopted the LRB's house plan, with changes in some Bexar and El Paso County districts, for use in the 1982 elections only, and directed the legislature to adopt a permanent house plan by September 1, 1983.

On May 10, 1983, the 68th Legislature in regular session enacted a bill adopting without change the federal court's house plan for the 1982 elections, and the court approved the plan on January 4, 1984.

Congressional Redistricting
The regular session of the 67th Legislature adjourned on June 1, 1981, without adopting a congressional plan. The legislature convened in special session and passed a congressional plan on August 10, which was submitted to the DOJ for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The DOJ issued an objection to the plan.

The congressional plan was challenged in federal district court in Seamon v. Upham. The DOJ had objected to two South Texas districts in the legislature's plan; the court determined that these objections invalidated the entire plan. The federal district court redrew districts in South Texas and in and around Dallas County, where its decision to draw two districts in which blacks would have had substantial influence but not a voting majority was appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the district court had erred and remanded the case to district court. Because the decision was issued in April and the primaries were to be held in May, the federal district court's congressional plan was allowed to stand for the 1982 elections.

The 68th Legislature left in place the federal court's congressional plan with the two black impact districts in Dallas County, but made changes to other districts in the Dallas area and in Bexar and Val Verde Counties.

State Board of Education Redistricting
In 1984, the 68th Legislature, 2nd Called Session, created a new 15‐member board, serving staggered four‐year terms, with one member elected from each of the 15 newly enacted districts. A transitional board was appointed by the governor to serve until 1989. In the 1988 general election, all 15 members were elected.