Jefferson County, Texas
Precinct data
Results by precinct
104 precincts · 86,433 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -Precinct 72Precinct 72 | 1,664 | 1,110 | 28 | 2,802 | 59.4% | 39.6% | D+19.8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -Precinct 9Precinct 9 | 437 | 2,331 | 22 | 2,790 | 15.7% | 83.5% | R+67.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 56Precinct 56 | 422 | 1,856 | 20 | 2,298 | 18.4% | 80.8% | R+62.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 60Precinct 60 | 411 | 1,761 | 15 | 2,187 | 18.8% | 80.5% | R+61.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 100Precinct 100 | 815 | 1,316 | 22 | 2,153 | 37.9% | 61.1% | R+23.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 69Precinct 69 | 505 | 1,603 | 28 | 2,136 | 23.6% | 75.0% | R+51.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 40Precinct 40 | 327 | 1,739 | 20 | 2,086 | 15.7% | 83.4% | R+67.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 74Precinct 74 | 330 | 1,598 | 17 | 1,945 | 17.0% | 82.2% | R+65.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 25Precinct 25 | 433 | 1,462 | 16 | 1,911 | 22.7% | 76.5% | R+53.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 26Precinct 26 | 774 | 1,042 | 23 | 1,839 | 42.1% | 56.7% | R+14.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 62Precinct 62 | 623 | 1,101 | 31 | 1,755 | 35.5% | 62.7% | R+27.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 37Precinct 37 | 318 | 1,291 | 13 | 1,622 | 19.6% | 79.6% | R+60.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 73Precinct 73 | 597 | 1,001 | 21 | 1,619 | 36.9% | 61.8% | R+25.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 22Precinct 22 | 951 | 660 | 5 | 1,616 | 58.8% | 40.8% | D+18.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 17Precinct 17 | 932 | 654 | 24 | 1,610 | 57.9% | 40.6% | D+17.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 42Precinct 42 | 276 | 1,314 | 20 | 1,610 | 17.1% | 81.6% | R+64.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 43Precinct 43 | 347 | 1,219 | 10 | 1,576 | 22.0% | 77.3% | R+55.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 79Precinct 79 | 688 | 836 | 28 | 1,552 | 44.3% | 53.9% | R+9.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 38Precinct 38 | 245 | 1,279 | 8 | 1,532 | 16.0% | 83.5% | R+67.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 29Precinct 29 | 156 | 1,270 | 9 | 1,435 | 10.9% | 88.5% | R+77.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 94Precinct 94 | 490 | 909 | 31 | 1,430 | 34.3% | 63.6% | R+29.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 68Precinct 68 | 621 | 766 | 25 | 1,412 | 44.0% | 54.2% | R+10.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 23Precinct 23 | 1,003 | 355 | 9 | 1,367 | 73.4% | 26.0% | D+47.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 65Precinct 65 | 413 | 908 | 26 | 1,347 | 30.7% | 67.4% | R+36.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 33Precinct 33 | 384 | 943 | 10 | 1,337 | 28.7% | 70.5% | R+41.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 70Precinct 70 | 703 | 558 | 25 | 1,286 | 54.7% | 43.4% | D+11.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 82Precinct 82 | 740 | 467 | 16 | 1,223 | 60.5% | 38.2% | D+22.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 50Precinct 50 | 839 | 256 | 16 | 1,111 | 75.5% | 23.0% | D+52.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 66Precinct 66 | 258 | 803 | 10 | 1,071 | 24.1% | 75.0% | R+50.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 31Precinct 31 | 109 | 936 | 12 | 1,057 | 10.3% | 88.6% | R+78.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 67Precinct 67 | 902 | 138 | 11 | 1,051 | 85.8% | 13.1% | D+72.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 78Precinct 78 | 659 | 374 | 4 | 1,037 | 63.5% | 36.1% | D+27.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 36Precinct 36 | 207 | 816 | 8 | 1,031 | 20.1% | 79.1% | R+59.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 4Precinct 4 | 437 | 573 | 14 | 1,024 | 42.7% | 56.0% | R+13.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 5Precinct 5 | 514 | 444 | 11 | 969 | 53.0% | 45.8% | D+7.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 34Precinct 34 | 851 | 90 | 7 | 948 | 89.8% | 9.5% | D+80.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 61Precinct 61 | 339 | 550 | 10 | 899 | 37.7% | 61.2% | R+23.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 92Precinct 92 | 274 | 599 | 8 | 881 | 31.1% | 68.0% | R+36.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 39Precinct 39 | 794 | 62 | 11 | 867 | 91.6% | 7.2% | D+84.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 30Precinct 30 | 78 | 781 | 5 | 864 | 9.0% | 90.4% | R+81.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 83Precinct 83 | 162 | 684 | 9 | 855 | 18.9% | 80.0% | R+61.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 3Precinct 3 | 733 | 79 | 5 | 817 | 89.7% | 9.7% | D+80.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 85Precinct 85 | 665 | 121 | 11 | 797 | 83.4% | 15.2% | D+68.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 27Precinct 27 | 416 | 348 | 15 | 779 | 53.4% | 44.7% | D+8.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 1Precinct 1 | 676 | 95 | 7 | 778 | 86.9% | 12.2% | D+74.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 88Precinct 88 | 508 | 249 | 15 | 772 | 65.8% | 32.3% | D+33.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 7Precinct 7 | 442 | 317 | 11 | 770 | 57.4% | 41.2% | D+16.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 18Precinct 18 | 699 | 56 | 2 | 757 | 92.3% | 7.4% | D+84.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 86Precinct 86 | 357 | 388 | 8 | 753 | 47.4% | 51.5% | R+4.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 35Precinct 35 | 118 | 598 | 5 | 721 | 16.4% | 82.9% | R+66.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 77Precinct 77 | 597 | 71 | 0 | 668 | 89.4% | 10.6% | D+78.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 47Precinct 47 | 392 | 259 | 8 | 659 | 59.5% | 39.3% | D+20.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 6Precinct 6 | 420 | 214 | 5 | 639 | 65.7% | 33.5% | D+32.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 91Precinct 91 | 68 | 559 | 4 | 631 | 10.8% | 88.6% | R+77.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 19Precinct 19 | 509 | 83 | 5 | 597 | 85.3% | 13.9% | D+71.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 87Precinct 87 | 486 | 97 | 8 | 591 | 82.2% | 16.4% | D+65.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 53Precinct 53 | 503 | 70 | 5 | 578 | 87.0% | 12.1% | D+74.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 14Precinct 14 | 494 | 72 | 8 | 574 | 86.1% | 12.5% | D+73.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 63Precinct 63 | 509 | 51 | 5 | 565 | 90.1% | 9.0% | D+81.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 15Precinct 15 | 445 | 104 | 7 | 556 | 80.0% | 18.7% | D+61.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 28Precinct 28 | 318 | 228 | 6 | 552 | 57.6% | 41.3% | D+16.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 45Precinct 45 | 315 | 212 | 5 | 532 | 59.2% | 39.8% | D+19.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 2Precinct 2 | 408 | 113 | 4 | 525 | 77.7% | 21.5% | D+56.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 46Precinct 46 | 325 | 191 | 2 | 518 | 62.7% | 36.9% | D+25.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 98Precinct 98 | 150 | 335 | 7 | 492 | 30.5% | 68.1% | R+37.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 20Precinct 20 | 404 | 66 | 4 | 474 | 85.2% | 13.9% | D+71.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 84Precinct 84 | 413 | 38 | 5 | 456 | 90.6% | 8.3% | D+82.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 59Precinct 59 | 418 | 22 | 7 | 447 | 93.5% | 4.9% | D+88.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 64Precinct 64 | 338 | 105 | 4 | 447 | 75.6% | 23.5% | D+52.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 48Precinct 48 | 275 | 113 | 5 | 393 | 70.0% | 28.8% | D+41.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 44Precinct 44 | 196 | 187 | 5 | 388 | 50.5% | 48.2% | D+2.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 76Precinct 76 | 271 | 111 | 2 | 384 | 70.6% | 28.9% | D+41.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 58Precinct 58 | 44 | 332 | 2 | 378 | 11.6% | 87.8% | R+76.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 95Precinct 95 | 132 | 244 | 2 | 378 | 34.9% | 64.6% | R+29.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 24Precinct 24 | 80 | 269 | 4 | 353 | 22.7% | 76.2% | R+53.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 81Precinct 81 | 327 | 23 | 3 | 353 | 92.6% | 6.5% | D+86.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 99Precinct 99 | 202 | 109 | 6 | 317 | 63.7% | 34.4% | D+29.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 57Precinct 57 | 292 | 20 | 2 | 314 | 93.0% | 6.4% | D+86.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 75Precinct 75 | 260 | 50 | 2 | 312 | 83.3% | 16.0% | D+67.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 93Precinct 93 | 205 | 78 | 3 | 286 | 71.7% | 27.3% | D+44.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 8Precinct 8 | 234 | 28 | 2 | 264 | 88.6% | 10.6% | D+78.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 54Precinct 54 | 235 | 21 | 3 | 259 | 90.7% | 8.1% | D+82.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 10Precinct 10 | 204 | 52 | 1 | 257 | 79.4% | 20.2% | D+59.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 96Precinct 96 | 174 | 74 | 2 | 250 | 69.6% | 29.6% | D+40.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 52Precinct 52 | 210 | 12 | 2 | 224 | 93.8% | 5.4% | D+88.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 103Precinct 103 | 20 | 202 | 1 | 223 | 9.0% | 90.6% | R+81.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 89Precinct 89 | 158 | 63 | 0 | 221 | 71.5% | 28.5% | D+43.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 71Precinct 71 | 31 | 172 | 0 | 203 | 15.3% | 84.7% | R+69.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 49Precinct 49 | 104 | 94 | 2 | 200 | 52.0% | 47.0% | D+5.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 12Precinct 12 | 182 | 14 | 1 | 197 | 92.4% | 7.1% | D+85.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 80Precinct 80 | 30 | 155 | 2 | 187 | 16.0% | 82.9% | R+66.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 55Precinct 55 | 170 | 8 | 3 | 181 | 93.9% | 4.4% | D+89.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 51Precinct 51 | 141 | 33 | 1 | 175 | 80.6% | 18.9% | D+61.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 11Precinct 11 | 140 | 33 | 1 | 174 | 80.5% | 19.0% | D+61.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 21Precinct 21 | 55 | 114 | 0 | 169 | 32.5% | 67.5% | R+34.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 16Precinct 16 | 115 | 49 | 2 | 166 | 69.3% | 29.5% | D+39.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 13Precinct 13 | 134 | 11 | 1 | 146 | 91.8% | 7.5% | D+84.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 32Precinct 32 | 28 | 109 | 1 | 138 | 20.3% | 79.0% | R+58.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 41Precinct 41 | 17 | 116 | 0 | 133 | 12.8% | 87.2% | R+74.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 97Precinct 97 | 74 | 37 | 2 | 113 | 65.5% | 32.7% | D+32.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 104Precinct 104 | 13 | 44 | 2 | 59 | 22.0% | 74.6% | R+52.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 90Precinct 90 | 22 | 9 | 0 | 31 | 71.0% | 29.0% | D+41.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 101Precinct 101 | 6 | 13 | 0 | 19 | 31.6% | 68.4% | R+36.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 102Precinct 102 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 50.0% | 50.0% | Even |
Presidential margin, 1904–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1904 | +30.0% |
| 1908 | +38.8% |
| 1912 | +63.3% |
| 1916 | +69.1% |
| 1920 | +48.6% |
| 1924 | +14.7% |
| 1928 | −13.6% |
| 1932 | +64.9% |
| 1936 | +75.2% |
| 1940 | +60.3% |
| 1944 | +60.3% |
| 1948 | +49.9% |
| 1952 | +7.3% |
| 1956 | −9.1% |
| 1960 | +15.8% |
| 1964 | +21.5% |
| 1968 | +5.2% |
| 1972 | −21.0% |
| 1976 | +18.8% |
| 1980 | +10.5% |
| 1984 | +9.7% |
| 1988 | +21.7% |
| 1992 | +19.7% |
| 1996 | +15.4% |
| 2000 | +5.9% |
| 2004 | +2.9% |
| 2008 | +2.2% |
| 2012 | +1.6% |
| 2016 | −0.5% |
| 2020 | −1.6% |
| 2024 | −8.9% |
U.S. Senate
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 149,936 |
| 2018 | 149,172 |
| 2020 | 149,372 |
| 2022 | 147,873 |
| 2024 | 147,938 |
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
−1,496 net domestic migration · 2025
Net −24,364 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $52,914 in average income, against $78,404 for residents who stayed — 33% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+28.9 on average — 20 points more Republican-leaning than Jefferson County, TX itself (R+8.9).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Harris County, TX907D+5.5
- Orange County, TX463R+66.7
- Hardin County, TX426R+75.8
- Chambers County, TX116R+65.6
- Galveston County, TX96R+27.4
- Calcasieu Parish, LA88R+39.6
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Harris County, TX1,126
- Orange County, TX557
- Hardin County, TX471
- Chambers County, TX133
- Montgomery County, TX126
- Fort Bend County, TX117
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 | −512 |
| 2012 | −3,604 |
| 2013 | −140 |
| 2014 | −1,940 |
| 2015 | +285 |
| 2016 | −1,228 |
| 2017 | −1,356 |
| 2018 | −4,231 |
| 2019 | −2,823 |
| 2021 | −2,638 |
| 2022 | −2,777 |
| 2023 | −453 |
| 2024 | −1,451 |
| 2025 | −1,496 |
Jefferson County, home to Beaumont and the Sabine-Neches petrochemical corridor, delivered Democratic presidential margins as recently as 2008 but has shifted rightward in each subsequent cycle, reflecting broader working-class realignment along the upper Texas coast.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 75.2 points in 1936 and a Republican high of 21.0 points in 1972. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 7.3 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 8.9 points.
A population of 253,878, a 36% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $60,026 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of St. John the Baptist Parish and Shelby 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 →
Jefferson County, Texas. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/48245/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.