A coalition of Texas voters, supported by the National Redistricting Foundation, has launched a substantial legal challenge against House Bill 4, the newly approved congressional map by the Texas Legislature. Filed late Saturday, the lawsuit accuses state officials of intentionally undermining majority-minority districts to increase Anglo dominance over Texas's 38 US House seats, potentially reshaping future political landscapes.

The suit targets Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson and Governor Greg Abbott, seeking to prevent the implementation of HB 4 in upcoming elections. It calls for the court to deem the map unconstitutional and in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, proposing a judicial review and correction of the electoral lines.

Governor Abbott justified the redistricting, initiated during a July special session, as a response to concerns from the US Department of Justice regarding potential racial gerrymandering in specific districts. However, the plaintiffs argue that the state exploited a legal nuance from a recent Fifth Circuit decision to justify the elimination of districts where minority voters previously elected candidates of their choice.

The complaint details how HB 4 allegedly manipulates district boundaries to diminish minority voting power. In Harris County, it suggests that Black voters were concentrated above a threshold in a redesigned TX-18, while TX-9 was altered to favor Anglo-preferred candidates despite having a nominal Latino majority. Similar patterns are claimed in Dallas and Central Texas, where restructuring has reportedly diluted the influence of Black and Latino communities.

Furthermore, the lawsuit accuses the map of subtly increasing Anglo-majority districts from 22 to 24, despite Anglos making up about half of the state's electorate. It also points to precision in crafting districts with 50-51% Black or Latino Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) as evidence of racial considerations overriding traditional redistricting criteria, such as compactness and community cohesion.

The plaintiffs present multiple legal claims, including intentional discrimination under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and violations of the Voting Rights Act. They challenge the map's adherence to legal population requirements, given significant post-census demographic changes, and contest the legitimacy of using racial and partisan data in this mid-decade redistricting.

The case, significant for its implications on congressional representation, will be heard by a three-judge district court. An appeal would go directly to the US Supreme Court. The plaintiffs seek a court-ordered remedial plan that restores or creates viable minority opportunity districts, ensuring adherence to federal laws and protections.

As the state prepares its defense, possibly attributing the map's design to partisan rather than racial motives, the lawsuit stands as a critical examination of the intersection of race and politics in redistricting.