Texas Scorecard by Travis Morgan October 8, 2025
Witnesses called by the State affirmed that the map was driven by partisan factors, not racial ones. The seventh day of Texas’s high-profile redistricting trial featured the Plaintiffs wrapping up their cross-examination of mapmaker Adam Kincaid, and witnesses for the State defending the new congressional map.
Plaintiffs suing over the map include the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC).
The Plaintiffs’ have argued that Texas’s latest legislative maps discriminate against minority voters. However, the State contends the process was strictly guided by partisan objectives.
Plaintiffs Challenge Mapmaking Criteria
Throughout the morning, Plaintiffs’ attorneys questioned Kincaid about his decision-making process in drawing several districts, pressing him to justify his mapping choices.
Kincaid repeatedly emphasized that his work adhered strictly to multiple partisan criteria and that the alternatives presented would not have been feasible under those requirements.
Kincaid took particular care in how he worded his testimony, refusing to concede to the Plaintiffs’ word choice when answering questions. This was to prevent any misrepresentation of his work in future court proceedings.
More:
https://texasscorecard.com/state/texas-redistricting-trial-day-7-state-witnesses-challenge-claims-of-racial-bias/
