Midland County, Texas
Precinct data
Results by precinct
45 precincts · 58,968 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -Precinct 211Precinct 211 | 656 | 2,815 | 35 | 3,506 | 18.7% | 80.3% | R+61.6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -Precinct 204Precinct 204 | 417 | 2,397 | 47 | 2,861 | 14.6% | 83.8% | R+69.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 411Precinct 411 | 329 | 2,128 | 32 | 2,489 | 13.2% | 85.5% | R+72.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 202APrecinct 202A | 225 | 2,130 | 9 | 2,364 | 9.5% | 90.1% | R+80.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 110Precinct 110 | 303 | 1,982 | 24 | 2,309 | 13.1% | 85.8% | R+72.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 403Precinct 403 | 372 | 1,885 | 35 | 2,292 | 16.2% | 82.2% | R+66.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 103Precinct 103 | 484 | 1,738 | 27 | 2,249 | 21.5% | 77.3% | R+55.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 202Precinct 202 | 140 | 2,087 | 15 | 2,242 | 6.2% | 93.1% | R+86.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 106Precinct 106 | 528 | 1,520 | 20 | 2,068 | 25.5% | 73.5% | R+48.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 408Precinct 408 | 223 | 1,811 | 17 | 2,051 | 10.9% | 88.3% | R+77.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 102Precinct 102 | 400 | 1,537 | 27 | 1,964 | 20.4% | 78.3% | R+57.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 406Precinct 406 | 334 | 1,589 | 22 | 1,945 | 17.2% | 81.7% | R+64.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 207Precinct 207 | 416 | 1,395 | 27 | 1,838 | 22.6% | 75.9% | R+53.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 107Precinct 107 | 367 | 1,414 | 24 | 1,805 | 20.3% | 78.3% | R+58.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 302Precinct 302 | 275 | 1,437 | 16 | 1,728 | 15.9% | 83.2% | R+67.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 404Precinct 404 | 295 | 1,405 | 23 | 1,723 | 17.1% | 81.5% | R+64.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 407Precinct 407 | 373 | 1,320 | 9 | 1,702 | 21.9% | 77.6% | R+55.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 405Precinct 405 | 311 | 1,363 | 21 | 1,695 | 18.3% | 80.4% | R+62.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 308Precinct 308 | 761 | 913 | 14 | 1,688 | 45.1% | 54.1% | R+9.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 410Precinct 410 | 204 | 1,437 | 22 | 1,663 | 12.3% | 86.4% | R+74.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 201Precinct 201 | 212 | 1,420 | 8 | 1,640 | 12.9% | 86.6% | R+73.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 409Precinct 409 | 247 | 1,237 | 14 | 1,498 | 16.5% | 82.6% | R+66.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 306Precinct 306 | 706 | 675 | 16 | 1,397 | 50.5% | 48.3% | D+2.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 206Precinct 206 | 218 | 1,031 | 30 | 1,279 | 17.0% | 80.6% | R+63.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 205Precinct 205 | 226 | 976 | 21 | 1,223 | 18.5% | 79.8% | R+61.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 210Precinct 210 | 202 | 726 | 18 | 946 | 21.4% | 76.7% | R+55.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 105Precinct 105 | 212 | 715 | 7 | 934 | 22.7% | 76.6% | R+53.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 401Precinct 401 | 66 | 813 | 4 | 883 | 7.5% | 92.1% | R+84.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 402Precinct 402 | 124 | 620 | 16 | 760 | 16.3% | 81.6% | R+65.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 307Precinct 307 | 186 | 504 | 8 | 698 | 26.6% | 72.2% | R+45.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 304Precinct 304 | 229 | 413 | 2 | 644 | 35.6% | 64.1% | R+28.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 305Precinct 305 | 318 | 315 | 6 | 639 | 49.8% | 49.3% | D+0.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 101Precinct 101 | 59 | 550 | 4 | 613 | 9.6% | 89.7% | R+80.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 307APrecinct 307A | 212 | 385 | 14 | 611 | 34.7% | 63.0% | R+28.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 203Precinct 203 | 68 | 433 | 6 | 507 | 13.4% | 85.4% | R+72.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 108APrecinct 108A | 83 | 412 | 2 | 497 | 16.7% | 82.9% | R+66.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 208Precinct 208 | 127 | 326 | 11 | 464 | 27.4% | 70.3% | R+42.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 104Precinct 104 | 134 | 304 | 6 | 444 | 30.2% | 68.5% | R+38.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 109Precinct 109 | 129 | 251 | 7 | 387 | 33.3% | 64.9% | R+31.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 310Precinct 310 | 85 | 272 | 2 | 359 | 23.7% | 75.8% | R+52.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 303Precinct 303 | 45 | 125 | 3 | 173 | 26.0% | 72.3% | R+46.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 309Precinct 309 | 48 | 121 | 2 | 171 | 28.1% | 70.8% | R+42.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 309APrecinct 309A | 2 | 16 | 0 | 18 | 11.1% | 88.9% | R+77.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 101APrecinct 101A | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 100.0% | R+100.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 108Precinct 108 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Even |
Presidential margin, 1912–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1912 | +83.7% |
| 1916 | +84.9% |
| 1920 | +59.5% |
| 1924 | +79.4% |
| 1928 | +0.4% |
| 1932 | +79.1% |
| 1936 | +72.8% |
| 1940 | +49.6% |
| 1944 | +47.3% |
| 1948 | +16.3% |
| 1952 | −42.1% |
| 1956 | −40.7% |
| 1960 | −31.2% |
| 1964 | −15.8% |
| 1968 | −34.6% |
| 1972 | −61.1% |
| 1976 | −42.1% |
| 1980 | −55.6% |
| 1984 | −64.6% |
| 1988 | −56.3% |
| 1992 | −36.2% |
| 1996 | −42.5% |
| 2000 | −60.3% |
| 2004 | −63.7% |
| 2008 | −57.3% |
| 2012 | −61.3% |
| 2016 | −54.8% |
| 2020 | −56.4% |
| 2024 | −60.5% |
U.S. Senate
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 80,329 |
| 2018 | 84,588 |
| 2020 | 90,392 |
| 2022 | 96,512 |
| 2024 | 99,004 |
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
+1,001 net domestic migration · 2025
Net +24,090 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $78,491 in average income, against $214,201 for residents who stayed — 63% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+26.5 on average — 34 points more Democratic-leaning than Midland County, TX itself (R+60.5).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Ector County, TX1,168R+52.9
- Harris County, TX284D+5.5
- El Paso County, TX230D+15.1
- Lubbock County, TX175R+39.5
- Tarrant County, TX145R+5.1
- Bexar County, TX144D+9.7
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Ector County, TX970
- Harris County, TX288
- Tarrant County, TX230
- Lubbock County, TX208
- Dallas County, TX170
- Bexar County, TX158
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 | +1,922 |
| 2012 | +5,275 |
| 2013 | +3,058 |
| 2014 | +2,098 |
| 2015 | +3,162 |
| 2016 | −879 |
| 2017 | −755 |
| 2018 | +5,009 |
| 2019 | +2,124 |
| 2021 | −3,575 |
| 2022 | +1,486 |
| 2023 | +2,474 |
| 2024 | +1,690 |
| 2025 | +1,001 |
Midland County posts some of the most lopsided presidential margins in Texas, a reflection of its identity as the administrative and corporate center of the Permian Basin, where the petrochemical industry anchors both the workforce and political culture.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 84.9 points in 1916 and a Republican high of 64.6 points in 1984. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 4.1 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 60.5 points.
A population of 174,801, a 42% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $92,874 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Tom Green County and Texas 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 →
Midland County, Texas. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/48329/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.