Lubbock County, Texas
Precinct data
Results by precinct
99 precincts · 125,038 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -Precinct 110Precinct 110 | 698 | 2,850 | 36 | 3,584 | 19.5% | 79.5% | R+60.0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -Precinct 121Precinct 121 | 571 | 2,652 | 39 | 3,262 | 17.5% | 81.3% | R+63.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 109Precinct 109 | 605 | 2,296 | 22 | 2,923 | 20.7% | 78.5% | R+57.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 33Precinct 33 | 379 | 2,432 | 15 | 2,826 | 13.4% | 86.1% | R+72.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 154Precinct 154 | 621 | 2,027 | 37 | 2,685 | 23.1% | 75.5% | R+52.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 78Precinct 78 | 577 | 1,993 | 44 | 2,614 | 22.1% | 76.2% | R+54.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 57Precinct 57 | 820 | 1,660 | 29 | 2,509 | 32.7% | 66.2% | R+33.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 120Precinct 120 | 413 | 2,032 | 26 | 2,471 | 16.7% | 82.2% | R+65.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 129Precinct 129 | 607 | 1,813 | 29 | 2,449 | 24.8% | 74.0% | R+49.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 111Precinct 111 | 501 | 1,885 | 19 | 2,405 | 20.8% | 78.4% | R+57.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 54Precinct 54 | 574 | 1,729 | 23 | 2,326 | 24.7% | 74.3% | R+49.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 46Precinct 46 | 304 | 1,991 | 13 | 2,308 | 13.2% | 86.3% | R+73.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 140Precinct 140 | 505 | 1,741 | 14 | 2,260 | 22.3% | 77.0% | R+54.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 32Precinct 32 | 480 | 1,658 | 17 | 2,155 | 22.3% | 76.9% | R+54.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 7Precinct 7 | 623 | 1,326 | 27 | 1,976 | 31.5% | 67.1% | R+35.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 52Precinct 52 | 485 | 1,454 | 18 | 1,957 | 24.8% | 74.3% | R+49.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 155Precinct 155 | 242 | 1,615 | 10 | 1,867 | 13.0% | 86.5% | R+73.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 66Precinct 66 | 430 | 1,399 | 18 | 1,847 | 23.3% | 75.7% | R+52.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 41Precinct 41 | 297 | 1,513 | 15 | 1,825 | 16.3% | 82.9% | R+66.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 15Precinct 15 | 885 | 900 | 27 | 1,812 | 48.8% | 49.7% | R+0.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 141Precinct 141 | 596 | 1,177 | 22 | 1,795 | 33.2% | 65.6% | R+32.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 119Precinct 119 | 668 | 1,085 | 19 | 1,772 | 37.7% | 61.2% | R+23.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 8Precinct 8 | 818 | 915 | 25 | 1,758 | 46.5% | 52.0% | R+5.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 9Precinct 9 | 646 | 1,080 | 29 | 1,755 | 36.8% | 61.5% | R+24.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 127Precinct 127 | 490 | 1,237 | 25 | 1,752 | 28.0% | 70.6% | R+42.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 72Precinct 72 | 560 | 1,164 | 17 | 1,741 | 32.2% | 66.9% | R+34.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 113Precinct 113 | 661 | 1,039 | 17 | 1,717 | 38.5% | 60.5% | R+22.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 59Precinct 59 | 665 | 1,010 | 23 | 1,698 | 39.2% | 59.5% | R+20.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 22Precinct 22 | 561 | 1,090 | 27 | 1,678 | 33.4% | 65.0% | R+31.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 53Precinct 53 | 612 | 1,022 | 20 | 1,654 | 37.0% | 61.8% | R+24.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 1Precinct 1 | 710 | 892 | 16 | 1,618 | 43.9% | 55.1% | R+11.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 76Precinct 76 | 456 | 1,141 | 16 | 1,613 | 28.3% | 70.7% | R+42.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 27Precinct 27 | 669 | 894 | 24 | 1,587 | 42.2% | 56.3% | R+14.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 139Precinct 139 | 351 | 1,203 | 12 | 1,566 | 22.4% | 76.8% | R+54.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 47Precinct 47 | 539 | 975 | 18 | 1,532 | 35.2% | 63.6% | R+28.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 125Precinct 125 | 395 | 1,102 | 11 | 1,508 | 26.2% | 73.1% | R+46.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 62Precinct 62 | 426 | 1,047 | 12 | 1,485 | 28.7% | 70.5% | R+41.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 30Precinct 30 | 516 | 892 | 25 | 1,433 | 36.0% | 62.2% | R+26.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 17Precinct 17 | 705 | 681 | 25 | 1,411 | 50.0% | 48.3% | D+1.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 128Precinct 128 | 316 | 1,067 | 14 | 1,397 | 22.6% | 76.4% | R+53.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 67Precinct 67 | 469 | 911 | 12 | 1,392 | 33.7% | 65.4% | R+31.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 124Precinct 124 | 360 | 1,011 | 14 | 1,385 | 26.0% | 73.0% | R+47.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 12Precinct 12 | 462 | 901 | 15 | 1,378 | 33.5% | 65.4% | R+31.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 39Precinct 39 | 211 | 1,135 | 9 | 1,355 | 15.6% | 83.8% | R+68.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 29Precinct 29 | 643 | 697 | 12 | 1,352 | 47.6% | 51.6% | R+4.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 36Precinct 36 | 307 | 1,013 | 12 | 1,332 | 23.0% | 76.1% | R+53.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 28Precinct 28 | 407 | 878 | 10 | 1,295 | 31.4% | 67.8% | R+36.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 112Precinct 112 | 333 | 922 | 18 | 1,273 | 26.2% | 72.4% | R+46.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 123Precinct 123 | 405 | 844 | 17 | 1,266 | 32.0% | 66.7% | R+34.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 122Precinct 122 | 450 | 703 | 20 | 1,173 | 38.4% | 59.9% | R+21.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 2Precinct 2 | 419 | 702 | 11 | 1,132 | 37.0% | 62.0% | R+25.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 31Precinct 31 | 187 | 925 | 10 | 1,122 | 16.7% | 82.4% | R+65.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 3Precinct 3 | 596 | 466 | 20 | 1,082 | 55.1% | 43.1% | D+12.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 118Precinct 118 | 416 | 643 | 15 | 1,074 | 38.7% | 59.9% | R+21.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 21Precinct 21 | 409 | 651 | 9 | 1,069 | 38.3% | 60.9% | R+22.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 37Precinct 37 | 207 | 844 | 8 | 1,059 | 19.5% | 79.7% | R+60.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 26Precinct 26 | 493 | 544 | 17 | 1,054 | 46.8% | 51.6% | R+4.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 152Precinct 152 | 399 | 578 | 16 | 993 | 40.2% | 58.2% | R+18.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 24Precinct 24 | 388 | 581 | 15 | 984 | 39.4% | 59.0% | R+19.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 50Precinct 50 | 393 | 556 | 6 | 955 | 41.2% | 58.2% | R+17.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 60Precinct 60 | 239 | 673 | 10 | 922 | 25.9% | 73.0% | R+47.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 58Precinct 58 | 305 | 607 | 5 | 917 | 33.3% | 66.2% | R+32.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 23Precinct 23 | 350 | 511 | 17 | 878 | 39.9% | 58.2% | R+18.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 75Precinct 75 | 208 | 660 | 9 | 877 | 23.7% | 75.3% | R+51.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 49Precinct 49 | 370 | 478 | 11 | 859 | 43.1% | 55.6% | R+12.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 14Precinct 14 | 345 | 476 | 16 | 837 | 41.2% | 56.9% | R+15.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 108Precinct 108 | 269 | 555 | 10 | 834 | 32.3% | 66.5% | R+34.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 44Precinct 44 | 154 | 673 | 6 | 833 | 18.5% | 80.8% | R+62.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 126Precinct 126 | 262 | 558 | 10 | 830 | 31.6% | 67.2% | R+35.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 104Precinct 104 | 190 | 606 | 7 | 803 | 23.7% | 75.5% | R+51.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 38Precinct 38 | 316 | 467 | 3 | 786 | 40.2% | 59.4% | R+19.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 151Precinct 151 | 93 | 623 | 4 | 720 | 12.9% | 86.5% | R+73.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 35Precinct 35 | 112 | 513 | 2 | 627 | 17.9% | 81.8% | R+64.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 56Precinct 56 | 137 | 483 | 2 | 622 | 22.0% | 77.7% | R+55.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 65Precinct 65 | 148 | 453 | 4 | 605 | 24.5% | 74.9% | R+50.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 135Precinct 135 | 121 | 469 | 7 | 597 | 20.3% | 78.6% | R+58.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 153Precinct 153 | 387 | 143 | 7 | 537 | 72.1% | 26.6% | D+45.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 6Precinct 6 | 417 | 83 | 3 | 503 | 82.9% | 16.5% | D+66.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 25Precinct 25 | 237 | 225 | 5 | 467 | 50.7% | 48.2% | D+2.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 43Precinct 43 | 65 | 387 | 10 | 462 | 14.1% | 83.8% | R+69.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 5Precinct 5 | 258 | 192 | 11 | 461 | 56.0% | 41.6% | D+14.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 20Precinct 20 | 388 | 57 | 6 | 451 | 86.0% | 12.6% | D+73.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 10Precinct 10 | 221 | 209 | 6 | 436 | 50.7% | 47.9% | D+2.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 114Precinct 114 | 225 | 200 | 3 | 428 | 52.6% | 46.7% | D+5.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 102Precinct 102 | 41 | 378 | 4 | 423 | 9.7% | 89.4% | R+79.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 13Precinct 13 | 136 | 282 | 3 | 421 | 32.3% | 67.0% | R+34.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 138Precinct 138 | 37 | 381 | 1 | 419 | 8.8% | 90.9% | R+82.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 4Precinct 4 | 261 | 152 | 1 | 414 | 63.0% | 36.7% | D+26.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 103Precinct 103 | 78 | 309 | 4 | 391 | 19.9% | 79.0% | R+59.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 40Precinct 40 | 266 | 108 | 5 | 379 | 70.2% | 28.5% | D+41.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 92Precinct 92 | 81 | 294 | 2 | 377 | 21.5% | 78.0% | R+56.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 34Precinct 34 | 69 | 303 | 0 | 372 | 18.5% | 81.5% | R+62.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 19Precinct 19 | 198 | 162 | 4 | 364 | 54.4% | 44.5% | D+9.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 45Precinct 45 | 53 | 262 | 0 | 315 | 16.8% | 83.2% | R+66.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 178Precinct 178 | 33 | 206 | 0 | 239 | 13.8% | 86.2% | R+72.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 11Precinct 11 | 73 | 38 | 1 | 112 | 65.2% | 33.9% | D+31.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 51Precinct 51 | 30 | 67 | 1 | 98 | 30.6% | 68.4% | R+37.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 63Precinct 63 | 22 | 68 | 0 | 90 | 24.4% | 75.6% | R+51.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 142Precinct 142 | 22 | 52 | 2 | 76 | 28.9% | 68.4% | R+39.5 |
Presidential margin, 1904–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1904 | +84.2% |
| 1908 | +78.0% |
| 1912 | +81.6% |
| 1916 | +85.8% |
| 1920 | +67.2% |
| 1924 | +56.2% |
| 1928 | −21.7% |
| 1932 | +79.6% |
| 1936 | +82.2% |
| 1940 | +72.6% |
| 1944 | +59.7% |
| 1948 | +54.4% |
| 1952 | −16.1% |
| 1956 | −5.4% |
| 1960 | −13.3% |
| 1964 | +11.9% |
| 1968 | −20.4% |
| 1972 | −47.6% |
| 1976 | −21.5% |
| 1980 | −41.2% |
| 1984 | −50.3% |
| 1988 | −39.0% |
| 1992 | −32.1% |
| 1996 | −32.9% |
| 2000 | −49.4% |
| 2004 | −51.2% |
| 2008 | −36.7% |
| 2012 | −40.8% |
| 2016 | −38.0% |
| 2020 | −32.2% |
| 2024 | −39.5% |
U.S. Senate
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 166,400 |
| 2018 | 176,056 |
| 2020 | 183,320 |
| 2022 | 187,728 |
| 2024 | 197,198 |
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 +19,477 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $58,883 in average income, against $85,663 for residents who stayed — 31% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+30.5 on average — 9.0 points more Democratic-leaning than Lubbock County, TX itself (R+39.5).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Hockley County, TX295R+66.3
- Tarrant County, TX281R+5.1
- Hale County, TX240R+57.9
- Dallas County, TX230D+22.2
- Midland County, TX208R+60.5
- Harris County, TX197D+5.5
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Tarrant County, TX357
- Dallas County, TX346
- Hockley County, TX296
- Harris County, TX241
- Travis County, TX213
- Bexar County, TX210
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 | +1,085 |
| 2012 | +578 |
| 2013 | +1,518 |
| 2014 | +2,486 |
| 2015 | +1,663 |
| 2016 | +1,524 |
| 2017 | +1,267 |
| 2018 | +578 |
| 2019 | +1,366 |
| 2021 | +2,119 |
| 2022 | +1,677 |
| 2023 | +1,161 |
| 2024 | +959 |
| 2025 | +1,496 |
Home to Texas Tech University and a regional medical center, Lubbock County anchors the southern Llano Estacado yet continues to post Republican presidential margins well above 35 points, resisting the urban drift seen elsewhere.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 85.8 points in 1916 and a Republican high of 51.2 points in 2004. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 7.4 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 39.5 points.
A population of 318,884, a 52% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $64,155 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Tom Green County and Taylor 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 →
Lubbock County, Texas. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/48303/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.