The ruling by a three-judge panel could clear the way for elections, if none of the nine groups contesting the state's political districts files an appeal. All sides were studying the complex maps to determine their next move.
Minority groups have accused the Republican-controlled Legislature of drawing maps that discriminated against them. The state's leaders say the maps merely give Republicans an advantage in the next election, something that is perfectly legal in drawing political districts.
Of national consequence is who will win the four new congressional seats moved to Texas following the 2010 census. Republicans want to retain control of Congress, where they currently have a 50-seat majority.
Minorities made up 89 percent of the population growth in the state, but the Legislature's map would have led to only one new minority elected to Congress from Texas.
In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, the court fundamentally redrew the Legislature's congressional map to create a majority Hispanic Congressional District 33, which runs through the center of the Metroplex. Republican Rep. Joe Barton's District 6 creates a right-handed hook through the mid-cities that separate Dallas and Fort Worth.
The court did make significant changes to Republican Rep. Quico Canseco's Congressional District 23, which stretches from El Paso to the western suburbs of San Antonio. The changes reflected those requested by Hispanic groups, but it was unclear if they were enough to hurt Canseco's election chances.
In the Austin area, the court kept the Legislature's map of dividing heavily-Democratic Travis County into five districts from the existing three, virtually guaranteeing that an Austin Democrat could not win re-election. The only potentially Democratic district, Congressional District 35, has the majority of residents living in the San Antonio area.
The court-drawn map made no change to the congressional districts in the Corpus Christi area, where Hispanic groups complained their votes were being diluted.
Under the Legislature's map, Hispanics were expected to be able to elect a candidate of their choice in one out of the four new districts. In the court-drawn map, they appeared to pick up at least two.
Early reaction to the maps was mixed. Luis Vera, attorney for the League of United Latin American Citizens, said his first impressions included "some disappointment" but declined further comment until he reviewed the maps more closely.
The Republican Party of Texas, meanwhile, simply celebrated the fact that there were maps and that a May 29 primary remained possible.
The Texas primaries originally loomed as the biggest prize of next week's Super Tuesday before the redistricting fallout forced the state to push the back the primary date. Texas has the most delegates of any state beside California, and the state wants the chance to play kingmaker in the Republican presidential primary before the race is settled.
"This is what we've been waiting on for about three months now," party spokesman Chris Elam said Tuesday. "We've been anxiously awaiting maps, and this is a great step forward in finally moving ahead with the primary."
Time is running out for Texas to hold primaries, and the maps are intended to get Texas through the 2012 election cycle. The fight over redistricting has already seen the Texas primaries delayed from March 6 to April 3 and now May 29. The last day Texans could vote is June 26.
The latest maps come after months of legal wrangling in three federal courtrooms, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The court threw out the last set of maps the San Antonio judges drew saying they did not adhere closely enough to the maps originally drawn by the Legislature.
The ruling does not resolve the two court cases still pending, but is only an interim measure. The San Antonio court must still make a decision on whether the original maps drawn by Republicans last year discriminates against minorities and needs to be changed. That decision is dependent on separate lawsuit in the Washington, D.C., federal court on whether the original maps are legal under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Washington court said it would probably issue a ruling sometime in March.
