Updates about ongoing redistricting litigation in the Lone Star State and coverage of election law more generally. This website's goal is to try to make sure the redistricting process and litigation over voting law is as transparent and accessible as possible to the public. Hopefully, it will be of some use to a broad range of interested parties, both lawyers and non-lawyers. Have questions, comments, suggestions, additional content, or a redistricting joke (or two)? Feel free to contact me: Michael Li, michael.li@mlilaw.com, 202.681.0641.
Posts I Like

[Updated to reflect that representatives who have said they are not seeking reelection. This reduces the actual number of pairings considerably.]

There are 12 pairings of incumbents in Plan H298, including 3 6  7 representatives who previously said they were not seeking reelection (indicated by an *).

HD 2: Cain (R), Flynn (R) 

HD 21: Hamilton (R), Ritter (R) 

HD 32: Hunter (R), Morrison (R) 

HD 33: Scott (R), Torres (R) 

HD 69: Hardcastle (R),* Lyne (R)* 

HD 80: Aliseda (R),* King, T. (D) 

HD 85: Chisum (R),* Landtroop (R) 

HD 91: Hancock (R)++, Nash (R) 

HD 109: Anderson, R. (R)++, Giddings (D) 

HD 113: Burkett (R), Driver (R)*

HD 114: Hartnett (R),* Sheets (R)

HD 133: Murphy (R), Woolley (R)*

++ Additional note.  Reps. Hancock and Anderson have said they are running for the state senate. If they follow through with what they have said, that would reduce the number of actual pairings to 4.  Under the interim senate map, both would be in SD-9 (Hancock originally had been in SD-10).