Redistricting Clash: Comparing Senate’s and House’s Proposed Maps in Second Special Session

Estimated Time to Read: 7 minutes

The first special session ended in gridlock. On August 4, House Democrats broke quorum to block legislation on redistricting, halting progress on an 18-item agenda. Days later, both chambers adjourned sine die. But the redistricting debate did not die with the first session; it escalated.

Governor Greg Abbott (R) immediately called a second special session with a 19-item agenda, adding camp safety while preserving every other issue from the previous call. At the top of the political priority list: revising Texas’s congressional districts in response to legal pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice and judicial precedent from Petteway v. Galveston County.

Now, two maps, PLANC2308 (Senate Bill 4) and PLANC2333 (House Bill 4), compete to shape how Texas elects its 38 U.S. Representatives. Here’s how they differ, and what’s at stake.

Population Equality: Maps Differ Slightly, But Both Comply

Both maps adhere closely to the constitutional requirement for equal population distribution.

Bottom Line: Both plans are constitutionally compliant. These differences are negligible and largely irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

Post-Petteway Representation: Restructuring Minority Influence

The redistricting process was triggered by Petteway v. Galveston County, a 2024 Fifth Circuit ruling that invalidated “coalition” districts combining multiple minority groups. This seismic shift in Voting Rights Act interpretation led the DOJ to flag TX-9, TX-18, TX-29, and TX-33 as constitutionally deficient.

Takeaway: While both maps comply with the new legal framework, the Senate plan more aggressively restructures districts to remove overlapping minority influence. The House map aims for compliance with a lighter touch.

Partisan Advantage: GOP Seeks to Lock in Congressional Control

Redistricting is always political, but this round is particularly strategic. President Donald Trump (R) called on Texas Republicans to create five new GOP-leaning districts. The Senate map appears to take that mandate seriously.

Takeaway: Both maps favor the GOP, but the Senate map represents a maximalist approach. The House plan softens the edge, offering some buffer against legal challenges and electoral backlash.

How District Boundaries Affect Urban and Suburban Communities

One of the most visible differences between the two proposals is how they adjust district lines in rapidly growing or politically competitive areas. Redistricting often involves combining some communities into fewer districts while dividing others among multiple districts in order to balance population shifts. These choices, while technical on the surface, can significantly influence how voters are grouped together.

For example, in Hays County, south of Austin, the Senate plan (PLANC2308) places residents into two different congressional districts, Districts 21 and 27, both of which lean Republican. The House version (PLANC2333) keeps Hays County more intact, maintaining a stronger connection between its growing suburban population and its representation.

In the Houston area, the Senate map concentrates large numbers of Democratic-leaning voters into a few districts, such as CD 9 and CD 18, while surrounding districts are redrawn in a way that favors Republicans. The House plan makes adjustments as well, but avoids some of the more sweeping changes, keeping certain communities together that the Senate plan divides.

Similar patterns appear in Dallas–Fort Worth, where the Senate plan reconfigures CD 24 and CD 32 in ways that strengthen Republican performance. The House proposal takes a more cautious approach, preserving more of the urban core of CD 33 and maintaining its demographic makeup.

These examples highlight how two maps, each compliant with legal population requirements, can differ in their treatment of local communities. The Senate plan generally takes a more aggressive approach in rebalancing districts, while the House plan attempts to preserve more continuity within existing boundaries.

Fiscal and Administrative Impact: Minimal but Meaningful

From a financial standpoint, Senate Bill 4 and House Bill 4 do not impose significant new costs on the state. According to the Legislative Budget Board, neither proposal creates new programs, agencies, or revenue streams. The redistricting process, while complex, is a routine function of state government conducted every ten years and largely managed within existing agency operations, particularly those of the Texas Legislative Council and the Secretary of State’s office.

At the local level, the fiscal impact is similarly limited. Election administrators may face minor administrative expenses, such as updating precinct boundaries, voter rolls, and polling place assignments. However, these adjustments are standard during any redistricting cycle and are generally absorbed within the routine functions of local government. While the maps themselves carry significant political consequences, their fiscal footprint is relatively light and should not be mistaken for a cost burden to taxpayers.

Liberty Principle Assessment: Why We Remain NEUTRAL on the Proposed Maps

Texas Policy Research issued a NEUTRAL position on both Senate Bill 4 and House Bill 4, recognizing the legislation as constitutionally authorized and fiscally neutral but not without concerns. The bill formalizes new congressional boundaries using data from the 2020 U.S. Census, repealing the previous plan enacted in SB 6 during the 87th Legislature. While redistricting inherently carries political consequences, the bills do not impose new laws on individuals, businesses, or local governments. They neither regulate behavior nor create new spending mandates. As such, they do not directly violate any of the five core liberty principles our organization uses to evaluate legislation.

While the bill’s effects on individual liberty, particularly representation, are real, they are more political than philosophical. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering, however frustrating, presents a non-justiciable political question. The Fifth Circuit’s Petteway decision further narrows the legal avenues available for minority coalition claims. As a result, concerns about representation and fairness, though potentially legitimate, are best addressed through political engagement and federal legal processes, not policy recommendations grounded in our liberty-first framework.

Support from Republican Leaders: Trump and the Texas GOP Weigh In

The push for mid-decade redistricting in Texas hasn’t occurred in a vacuum; it’s been backed by top Republican leaders at both the state and national levels.

President Donald Trump made his expectations clear early in the redistricting process. Speaking to reporters during the summer, he stated, “I think we’ll get five [seats]. Texas would be the biggest one.”

On Monday, President Trump took to Truth Social and said,

His remarks came amid speculation that the redrawn maps could give Republicans a decisive edge in the 2026 midterms. Trump’s political team reportedly played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging state lawmakers to revisit congressional boundaries in light of the Petteway ruling.

The Republican Party of Texas has also publicly supported the redistricting efforts, framing them as both constitutionally necessary and politically prudent. In an official statement, the Texas GOP said,

“The Republican Party of Texas stands in strong support of House Bill 4 (89th Leg., 2nd C.S.) and Senate Bill 4 (89th Leg., 2nd C.S.), the Big Beautiful Map. Advancing this critical redistricting legislation in the Texas House and Texas Senate will strengthen President Trump’s America First agenda.

In 2024, President Trump won Texas by a margin of over 1.5 million votes, the second-largest margin of victory for any presidential candidate in Texas history. president Trump won 242 out of the state’s 254 counties, including 14 out of 18 border counties. The Big Beautiful Map reflects the political landscape in Texas. All Texas political maps need to reflect the will of Texas voters. Texas House and Texas Senate next.”

Together, these endorsements underscore that the redistricting process in Texas is not only a legal response to federal rulings but also a strategic initiative championed by GOP leadership as a way to secure long-term congressional influence.

Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Power and Principle

Texas’ redistricting process has become the arena where legal precedent, partisan strategy, and demographic change collide. With PLANC2308 and PLANC2333, lawmakers are choosing not just how Texas will be represented but who will get to compete for that representation.

The Senate’s map pursues a decisive shift toward Republican dominance. It is unapologetically political, maximally strategic, and laser-focused on reshaping competitive districts into GOP strongholds. Meanwhile, the House map takes a more restrained approach. It still leans Republican but maintains more competitive districts, preserves some urban cohesion, and arguably presents less legal risk.

Texas Policy Research remains neutral on SB 4 and HB 4 because neither expands government power nor imposes mandates that conflict with our core principles. Still, we believe the public has every right to scrutinize how these maps are drawn, who draws them, and what values they reflect. In a representative republic, how lines are drawn often determines who gets to speak.

And in Texas, that has never been a trivial decision.

References

The following are the links to the proposed legislation and maps as a part of the redistricting process taking place in the second-called special session of the 89th Legislature:

• Senate Bill 4 (PLANC2308)
  • Proposed Map
• House Bill 4 (PLANC2333)
  • Proposed Map

Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!