George Flint: Who Is Protecting Democracy?

Estimated Time to Read: 6 minutes

---

Editor’s Note: The following guest commentary reflects the views and opinions of the author alone and does not necessarily represent the official views of Texas Policy Research, its staff, board, or affiliated organizations. Guest submissions are lightly edited for grammar, formatting, clarity, and length while preserving the author’s voice and arguments. Texas Policy Research remained NEUTRAL as the proposed congressional redistricting legislation was being considered during the 89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session. This commentary was submitted in response to a recent Dallas Morning News opinion piece titled “Texas doesn’t have many real elections anymore.“ The Supreme Court just made it worse, authored by State Rep. Mihaela Plesa (D-Dallas), incumbent from Texas HD 70.

---

To start, let’s first remember that the United States is not a pure direct democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. Many conservatives argue that a pure democracy can result in the tyranny of the majority, while America’s constitutional structure was designed by the Founders to protect minority rights and encourage deliberate decision-making.

My Democrat opponent in the race for Texas House District 70 recently wrote an editorial titled “Texas broken elections just got worse.” As a former Texas district judge, I am sensitive to unproven factual conclusions and political “spin,” and that statement contains at least two questionable premises.

First, Texas elections are not “broken” unless one believes efforts by Republicans to strengthen election integrity measures somehow undermine fair elections. Many Texans support policies intended to ensure citizens can trust that legal votes are counted properly and that ballot harvesting or election tampering is minimized.

Second, Texas elections have not “just got worse” unless one disagrees with the reality that many voters from all races, creeds, educational backgrounds, and walks of life increasingly support less government, greater transparency, lower taxation, and a stronger role for free enterprise in solving problems.

It is ironic that the conclusion that Texas elections “got worse” is being advanced by a Democrat who benefited from the 2022 redistricting process conducted by Republican lawmakers, which transformed Texas House District 70 from a Republican-leaning district into a highly competitive one.

It is also ironic that my opponent characterizes recent Supreme Court decisions as harmful when some recent rulings have increased scrutiny of race-conscious redistricting practices and reinforced the importance of constitutional standards in map-drawing.

Many Republicans argue that adherence to the rule of law is foundational to representative government, while many conservatives believe Democrats too often treat the law as a political tool to follow when convenient and challenge when politically advantageous.

A recent example of this disagreement involves the latest redistricting fight in the Texas Legislature.

Redistricting itself is necessary. With the exception of the United States Senate, where every state receives two senators regardless of population, both Congress and the Texas Legislature rely on proportionate representation. Legislative districts must therefore contain roughly equal populations so that representation remains balanced.

Because populations shift over time, district lines must occasionally change. That process is known as redistricting, and it is essential to maintaining representative government.

Redistricting also becomes necessary when internal population shifts create imbalances between districts. Recent census and migration trends have shown substantial movement from many Democrat-dominated states and urban areas into Republican-led states such as Texas. As Texans continue relocating throughout the state, district boundaries must periodically be adjusted to maintain equal representation.

The central Democrat complaint appears to be that congressional redistricting occurred in 2025, between the 2020 and 2030 censuses, and that such a process somehow violated constitutional principles or notions of fairness. It did not. Texas followed existing law in conducting mid-decade redistricting, something that is legally permissible under current Supreme Court precedent.

Mid-decade redistricting is not illegal. Neither the Constitution nor Congress prohibits it. In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006), the United States Supreme Court reviewed Texas’s 2003 mid-decade congressional redistricting effort.

That effort emerged after Republicans argued the existing congressional maps unfairly favored Democrats. At the time, Democrats controlled 57% of Texas congressional seats despite Republicans winning 59% of the statewide vote in 2000.

During the 2003 legislative session, Democratic lawmakers left the state in an effort to block a quorum and prevent the Legislature from carrying out the redistricting process. Republicans ultimately prevailed, and the Supreme Court later confirmed that mid-decade redistricting itself was constitutionally permissible.

Democrats used a similar strategy again in 2025 by walking out during the latest redistricting debate. Like the 2003 walkout, the move generated substantial media attention but ultimately failed to stop the legislative process.

While Democrat lawmakers were absent, legislative committees still met, hearings were still conducted, and legislation continued moving through the process. The practical effect was that many Texans, including voters in House District 70, temporarily lacked direct representation in the Legislature.

Despite those efforts, Texas proceeded with its congressional redistricting plans through the normal legislative process. The resulting legal challenges eventually reached the United States Supreme Court in Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens (2025), where the Court allowed the maps to remain in effect for the 2026 election cycle.

In doing so, the Supreme Court stated:

“Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors. First, the District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith … Second, the District Court failed to draw an … adverse inference against respondents even though they did not produce a viable alternative map that met the State’s avowedly partisan goals.”

Supporters of the current maps argue that Texas House District 70 should be represented by someone who reflects values such as family, hard work, liberty, limited taxation, restrained regulation, and commonsense approaches to addressing rising living costs.

Texas elections are not broken. Rather, Texas elections increasingly reflect voters’ views regarding the direction of government, economic policy, and public accountability.

Many Texans believe the state’s economic success has been strengthened by conservative, pro-growth policies that encourage business development, population growth, and economic opportunity.

Texas elections are better than ever.

God Bless Texas.

---

---