You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.


  • ePAPER

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks


Welcome to

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on

PolitiFact: Courts repeatedly finding Texas laws discriminatory

After federal judges in April 2017 ruled that Texas Republicans had intentionally diluted minority voting strength when they redrew U.S. and Texas House districts, a Democratic legislator said it wasn’t the first time — or even the fifth.

Rep. Rafael Anchia of Dallas, who chairs the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, posted a tweet saying: “How many federal rulings have NOW found intentional discrimination by #Txlege since 2011? 6.”

Six rulings? We decided to put that to the Texas Truth-O-Meter.

When we asked, Jaclyn Uresti, executive director of the caucus, emailed us a list that added up to six decisions, all of which we confirmed from news accounts and court rulings:

• Aug. 28, 2012: In a redistricting case brought by the U.S. Justice Department, three federal judges ruled that the state had “not met its burden to show that the U.S. Congressional and State House Plans will not have a retrogressive effect, and that the U.S. Congressional and State Senate Plans were not enacted with discriminatory purpose.” In rejecting the argument from state attorneys, the court said the maps had “the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group” in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

• Aug. 30, 2012: In a unanimous ruling, three judges in Washington, D.C., issued the first of what were to become several decisions that blocked the state’s voter photo identification law, which requires Texans to present a state-issued photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls. “A law that forces poorer citizens to choose between their wages and their franchise unquestionably denies or abridges their right to vote,” the opinion said, adding that the law was intentionally discriminatory.

• Oct. 9, 2014: In a case brought by U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi ruled the voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by disproportionately and intentionally burdening African-American and Latino voters. She blocked the law from going into effect and said it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.

• March 10: A three-judge panel ruled, in a case brought by Shannon Perez, a Latina Democratic Bexar County voter, that Republican lawmakers in 2011 drew three of the state’s 36 congressional districts in a way that discriminated against Latino voters.

• April 10: Judge Ramos of Corpus Christi — reviewing Veasey’s voter ID case at the direction of 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — found that the 2011 Legislature intentionally discriminated against minority voters by advancing the mandate that each voter present a photo ID if casting a ballot at the polls.

• April 20: The pair of federal judges who ruled against Texas in March 2017 decided, in a new case brought by Democrats, that Republican lawmakers in 2011 redrew Texas House districts with the intention of diluting the electoral strength of minority voters in several parts of the state. “The impact of the plan was certainly to reduce minority voting opportunity statewide, resulting in even less proportional representation for minority voters,” according to the court’s 2-1 opinion.

Our ruling:

Anchia said that six times since 2011, federal rulings found intentional discrimination by the Legislature.

We confirmed six such rulings from August 2012 through April 2017 issued by federal judges regarding Republican-drawn U.S. House and Texas House districts or the GOP-driven law requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls.

We rate the claim True.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Texas News & Politics

Barton Creek bike bridge built, but few coming so far
Barton Creek bike bridge built, but few coming so far

I tweeted out just after sunrise Friday that I was hanging out at the new Barton Creek bike bridge in Southwest Austin to see how many cyclists and others might be using the $14.5 million edifice. I noted that in the half-hour or so I was there, I had seen one commuting cyclist cross the 1,045-foot span over the creek gorge. Not surprisingly, the qualifiers...
Traffic report for June 26, 2017

Interstate 35 (Travis County): The outside lane on the southbound access road will be closed between Parmer Lane and Rundberg Lane from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. Monday and Tuesday nights; locations will change nightly, and Exits 245 through 241 will be closed as needed. Multiple southbound lane closures between Colonial Park Boulevard and Boggy Creek from...
Emails chart how ‘Mad Men’ archive landed at UT’s Ransom Center
Emails chart how ‘Mad Men’ archive landed at UT’s Ransom Center

An archive of props, clothing, scripts and abandoned story lines from a TV series might not seem at first blush to embody the literary, cultural or artistic significance of the Gutenberg Bible, Frida Kahlo’s “Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird” or any number of other holdings at the University of Texas’ Harry...
PolitiFact: Paxton uses old line about Obama that’s no longer true
PolitiFact: Paxton uses old line about Obama that’s no longer true

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, pleased at the revocation of a federal effort to shield some older immigrants from deportation, says that then-President Barack Obama repeatedly acknowledged that his administration’s 2014 immigration order wasn’t legal. In a recent press release, Paxton applauded the Homeland Security Department&rsquo...
Challengers of ‘sanctuary cities’ ban to get their day in federal court
Challengers of ‘sanctuary cities’ ban to get their day in federal court

Challengers of Senate Bill 4, the “sanctuary cities” ban, will have their first day in federal court Monday before a presiding judge who has recently ruled that federal immigration detention requests central to the controversial state law are unconstitutional. Monday’s hearing in San Antonio before U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia...
More Stories