Dallas County Commissioners Court on Thursday unanimously approved a package of precinct boundary amendments intended to consolidate small or inactive precincts and align county precincts with newly drawn congressional districts — but the order is explicitly contingent on the U.S. Supreme Court leaving the challenged congressional lines in place.

The court’s motion, made by an unidentified commissioner, said the maps "be in effect if and only if the Supreme Court vacates the ruling of the lower court" that had previously issued a temporary restraining order. The motion was seconded and carried after a short public‑comment period and discussion of legal timing and notification procedures.

Why it matters: County elections staff said the changes respond to congressional redistricting earlier this year and aim to eliminate precincts with very small or zero active voters to improve administration and efficiency. Commissioners and staff emphasized urgency because of an upcoming filing deadline that they said falls on the coming Monday; if the Supreme Court does not act before then, the court said existing precinct lines would remain in place without further county action.

Elections staff read dozens of specific amendments across commissioner districts, describing proposed absorptions and the active‑voter counts that prompted them. Examples read into the record included multiple District 4 precincts proposed for absorption (such as precincts in the 4020–4678 range) and District 1 precinct consolidations into 1410; staff repeatedly cited ‘‘precinct has less than 500 active voters’’ as the reason for many absorptions.

County GIS staff displayed an overlay comparing the old and new precinct maps and explained that "hard lines" — federal, state and other major district boundaries — constrain possible combinations. The elections official told the court that optimal precinct sizes for administration generally range from roughly 2,500 to 3,500 voters, and that county policy allows precincts up to 5,000 in code.

Public comment reflected mixed views. Linda Weiss, a precinct chair for Precinct 4076, recounted a 2013 change that moved many older voters to a different polling site and said the result was "horrible" for voters who rely on wheelchairs and rides; Weiss asked the court to consider access and neighborhood continuity. "It was heart wrenching to watch those people," she said. (Linda Weiss, Precinct 4076.)

Elizabeth Hamline, an Irving precinct chair and election judge, accused the new congressional plan (referred to in testimony as C233) and its architects of disenfranchising Black, Latino and Muslim voters in parts of Irving and West Dallas County, saying the map "silences our majority minority city." Her remarks named state political actors and private donors by way of describing political pressure but were made as public comment and not as evidence in the court record. (Elizabeth Hamline.)

Michael McPhail, a former Dallas County Democratic Party elections director, spoke in favor of the consolidations, saying smaller precincts make staffing and ballot handling harder and that the proposed map would make administration easier. He also said some precinct chairs had not received notifications and urged the county to ensure broad communication.

Elections staff responded that notifications were sent to precinct chairs and political party chairs (twice in some cases) and that letters and updated notices were distributed when the agenda previously failed to pass. The staff said they had asked political parties to provide contact emails and used those where available.

Procedural outcome: The court’s order attaches the full list of precinct amendments read into the record and makes implementation conditional on the U.S. Supreme Court vacating the lower‑court ruling on congressional maps; if the high court does not issue such relief, the order will not take effect and the current precinct lines will remain in force. The court thanked staff for the short‑notice work and adjourned after the unanimous vote.

What’s next: Because the action was contingent on pending Supreme Court action and the county cited a Monday filing deadline as the driver of the short timetable, county elections officials said they will monitor the high court’s decision and coordinate with precinct chairs and party officials as needed. The vote was recorded as "motion carries unanimously;" the transcript does not include a roll‑call tally by name.