Guadalupe County, Texas
Precinct data
Results by precinct
76 precincts · 85,350 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -Precinct 208Precinct 208 | 1,322 | 3,401 | 58 | 4,781 | 27.7% | 71.1% | R+43.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -Precinct 415Precinct 415 | 1,835 | 2,221 | 54 | 4,110 | 44.6% | 54.0% | R+9.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 307Precinct 307 | 1,445 | 1,815 | 52 | 3,312 | 43.6% | 54.8% | R+11.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 305Precinct 305 | 1,334 | 1,869 | 45 | 3,248 | 41.1% | 57.5% | R+16.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 404Precinct 404 | 1,322 | 1,733 | 47 | 3,102 | 42.6% | 55.9% | R+13.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 414Precinct 414 | 1,330 | 1,725 | 42 | 3,097 | 42.9% | 55.7% | R+12.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 306Precinct 306 | 1,174 | 1,698 | 48 | 2,920 | 40.2% | 58.2% | R+17.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 304Precinct 304 | 1,117 | 1,693 | 44 | 2,854 | 39.1% | 59.3% | R+20.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 309Precinct 309 | 1,084 | 1,589 | 43 | 2,716 | 39.9% | 58.5% | R+18.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 213Precinct 213 | 769 | 1,827 | 37 | 2,633 | 29.2% | 69.4% | R+40.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 128Precinct 128 | 757 | 1,725 | 33 | 2,515 | 30.1% | 68.6% | R+38.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 106Precinct 106 | 815 | 1,656 | 24 | 2,495 | 32.7% | 66.4% | R+33.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 412Precinct 412 | 1,142 | 1,212 | 28 | 2,382 | 47.9% | 50.9% | R+2.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 409Precinct 409 | 1,203 | 1,080 | 28 | 2,311 | 52.1% | 46.7% | D+5.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 105Precinct 105 | 469 | 1,809 | 26 | 2,304 | 20.4% | 78.5% | R+58.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 129Precinct 129 | 658 | 1,447 | 22 | 2,127 | 30.9% | 68.0% | R+37.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 117Precinct 117 | 630 | 1,437 | 29 | 2,096 | 30.1% | 68.6% | R+38.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 311Precinct 311 | 883 | 1,156 | 23 | 2,062 | 42.8% | 56.1% | R+13.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 401Precinct 401 | 566 | 1,466 | 22 | 2,054 | 27.6% | 71.4% | R+43.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 405Precinct 405 | 407 | 1,497 | 27 | 1,931 | 21.1% | 77.5% | R+56.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 116Precinct 116 | 404 | 1,341 | 20 | 1,765 | 22.9% | 76.0% | R+53.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 407Precinct 407 | 273 | 1,297 | 11 | 1,581 | 17.3% | 82.0% | R+64.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 308Precinct 308 | 529 | 973 | 22 | 1,524 | 34.7% | 63.8% | R+29.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 206Precinct 206 | 748 | 692 | 10 | 1,450 | 51.6% | 47.7% | D+3.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 119Precinct 119 | 320 | 1,090 | 8 | 1,418 | 22.6% | 76.9% | R+54.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 102Precinct 102 | 418 | 976 | 22 | 1,416 | 29.5% | 68.9% | R+39.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 408Precinct 408 | 453 | 938 | 16 | 1,407 | 32.2% | 66.7% | R+34.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 204Precinct 204 | 529 | 718 | 15 | 1,262 | 41.9% | 56.9% | R+15.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 310Precinct 310 | 508 | 724 | 13 | 1,245 | 40.8% | 58.2% | R+17.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 406Precinct 406 | 192 | 1,035 | 7 | 1,234 | 15.6% | 83.9% | R+68.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 205Precinct 205 | 224 | 761 | 12 | 997 | 22.5% | 76.3% | R+53.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 303Precinct 303 | 381 | 586 | 25 | 992 | 38.4% | 59.1% | R+20.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 107Precinct 107 | 180 | 783 | 8 | 971 | 18.5% | 80.6% | R+62.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 114Precinct 114 | 263 | 667 | 11 | 941 | 27.9% | 70.9% | R+42.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 120Precinct 120 | 197 | 711 | 9 | 917 | 21.5% | 77.5% | R+56.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 215Precinct 215 | 246 | 638 | 6 | 890 | 27.6% | 71.7% | R+44.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 113Precinct 113 | 210 | 595 | 9 | 814 | 25.8% | 73.1% | R+47.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 214Precinct 214 | 164 | 562 | 11 | 737 | 22.3% | 76.3% | R+54.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 202Precinct 202 | 315 | 283 | 14 | 612 | 51.5% | 46.2% | D+5.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 413Precinct 413 | 57 | 534 | 7 | 598 | 9.5% | 89.3% | R+79.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 207Precinct 207 | 295 | 283 | 9 | 587 | 50.3% | 48.2% | D+2.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 228Precinct 228 | 186 | 388 | 5 | 579 | 32.1% | 67.0% | R+34.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 210Precinct 210 | 236 | 317 | 7 | 560 | 42.1% | 56.6% | R+14.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 104Precinct 104 | 233 | 308 | 7 | 548 | 42.5% | 56.2% | R+13.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 103Precinct 103 | 148 | 371 | 12 | 531 | 27.9% | 69.9% | R+42.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 109Precinct 109 | 79 | 341 | 7 | 427 | 18.5% | 79.9% | R+61.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 227Precinct 227 | 103 | 307 | 5 | 415 | 24.8% | 74.0% | R+49.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 203Precinct 203 | 161 | 219 | 5 | 385 | 41.8% | 56.9% | R+15.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 209Precinct 209 | 200 | 177 | 4 | 381 | 52.5% | 46.5% | D+6.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 115Precinct 115 | 76 | 295 | 1 | 372 | 20.4% | 79.3% | R+58.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 201Precinct 201 | 114 | 180 | 3 | 297 | 38.4% | 60.6% | R+22.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 216Precinct 216 | 68 | 198 | 4 | 270 | 25.2% | 73.3% | R+48.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 226Precinct 226 | 66 | 154 | 4 | 224 | 29.5% | 68.8% | R+39.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 410Precinct 410 | 55 | 165 | 1 | 221 | 24.9% | 74.7% | R+49.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 230Precinct 230 | 51 | 152 | 0 | 203 | 25.1% | 74.9% | R+49.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 212Precinct 212 | 90 | 99 | 3 | 192 | 46.9% | 51.6% | R+4.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 110Precinct 110 | 63 | 98 | 3 | 164 | 38.4% | 59.8% | R+21.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 223Precinct 223 | 81 | 79 | 2 | 162 | 50.0% | 48.8% | D+1.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 125Precinct 125 | 27 | 118 | 3 | 148 | 18.2% | 79.7% | R+61.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 112Precinct 112 | 56 | 50 | 2 | 108 | 51.9% | 46.3% | D+5.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 229Precinct 229 | 39 | 68 | 1 | 108 | 36.1% | 63.0% | R+26.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 231Precinct 231 | 24 | 76 | 2 | 102 | 23.5% | 74.5% | R+51.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 211Precinct 211 | 43 | 47 | 3 | 93 | 46.2% | 50.5% | R+4.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 217Precinct 217 | 43 | 50 | 0 | 93 | 46.2% | 53.8% | R+7.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 224Precinct 224 | 49 | 34 | 0 | 83 | 59.0% | 41.0% | D+18.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 220Precinct 220 | 33 | 28 | 0 | 61 | 54.1% | 45.9% | D+8.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 219Precinct 219 | 26 | 30 | 1 | 57 | 45.6% | 52.6% | R+7.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 218Precinct 218 | 24 | 18 | 0 | 42 | 57.1% | 42.9% | D+14.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 232Precinct 232 | 7 | 21 | 1 | 29 | 24.1% | 72.4% | R+48.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 126Precinct 126 | 4 | 18 | 0 | 22 | 18.2% | 81.8% | R+63.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 221Precinct 221 | 5 | 13 | 2 | 20 | 25.0% | 65.0% | R+40.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 127Precinct 127 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 14 | 7.1% | 92.9% | R+85.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 225Precinct 225 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 14 | 50.0% | 42.9% | D+7.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 123Precinct 123 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 9 | 33.3% | 66.7% | R+33.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 124Precinct 124 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 33.3% | 66.7% | R+33.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 222Precinct 222 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 100.0% | 0.0% | D+100.0 |
Presidential margin, 1904–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1904 | −14.4% |
| 1908 | No data |
| 1912 | +2.3% |
| 1916 | −37.1% |
| 1920 | −39.6% |
| 1924 | −20.2% |
| 1928 | +13.0% |
| 1932 | +68.7% |
| 1936 | +40.0% |
| 1940 | −6.2% |
| 1944 | −22.4% |
| 1948 | −7.8% |
| 1952 | −30.7% |
| 1956 | −34.2% |
| 1960 | −8.0% |
| 1964 | +25.1% |
| 1968 | −8.8% |
| 1972 | −41.7% |
| 1976 | −5.5% |
| 1980 | −31.4% |
| 1984 | −47.8% |
| 1988 | −29.9% |
| 1992 | −18.4% |
| 1996 | −25.3% |
| 2000 | −43.1% |
| 2004 | −46.2% |
| 2008 | −31.0% |
| 2012 | −35.0% |
| 2016 | −31.4% |
| 2020 | −24.1% |
| 2024 | −29.5% |
U.S. Senate
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 93,596 |
| 2018 | 99,012 |
| 2020 | 111,142 |
| 2022 | 119,523 |
| 2024 | 130,489 |
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
+4,737 net domestic migration · 2025
Net +49,638 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $72,216 in average income, against $82,110 for residents who stayed — 12% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+4.9 on average — 25 points more Democratic-leaning than Guadalupe County, TX itself (R+29.5).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Bexar County, TX2,502D+9.7
- Comal County, TX1,276R+45.5
- Hays County, TX577D+5.6
- Travis County, TX354D+39.3
- Harris County, TX158D+5.5
- Williamson County, TX133R+2.4
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Bexar County, TX1,894
- Comal County, TX1,108
- Hays County, TX354
- Travis County, TX224
- Harris County, TX139
- Wilson County, TX124
Migration is one input to a place’s political change, not its cause — a shift can also come from residents changing their minds, generational turnover, or turnout. These figures describe the places people moved between; they do not measure how any mover voted.
| Year | Net domestic migration |
|---|---|
| 2011 | +2,304 |
| 2012 | +2,769 |
| 2013 | +2,352 |
| 2014 | +2,882 |
| 2015 | +2,925 |
| 2016 | +3,036 |
| 2017 | +4,339 |
| 2018 | +2,942 |
| 2019 | +2,866 |
| 2021 | +3,380 |
| 2022 | +4,875 |
| 2023 | +5,084 |
| 2024 | +5,147 |
| 2025 | +4,737 |
Guadalupe County sits at the northeastern edge of the San Antonio metro, where rapid suburban growth has not eroded a Republican presidential margin that has held above 25 points for over a decade.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 68.7 points in 1932 and a Republican high of 47.8 points in 1984. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 5.4 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 29.5 points.
A population of 183,642, a 47% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $92,375 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Lubbock County and Douglas County.
The counties whose fingerprint — 2000–2024 trajectory, demographics, ancestry, religion — sits closest to this one, and why.
Twin score (0–100) = weighted cosine between tier-standardized fingerprints: presidential margins 2000–2024 with 12-yr trend and elasticity, ACS income, age, education, population and race, top reported ancestries, and religious adherence — chips name the closest-shared dimensions and the widest gap. Re-weight the groups in the twins explorer.
Browse places by community — income, education, race & ethnicity, language — all community cuts →
Compare two places, side by side
Twelve curated comparisons line up election history, demographics, and the divergence story for two places at a glance. Browse all comparisons →
Guadalupe County, Texas. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/48187/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.