Smith County, Texas
Precinct data
Results by precinct
75 precincts · 104,186 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -Precinct 71Precinct 71 | 733 | 2,691 | 50 | 3,474 | 21.1% | 77.5% | R+56.4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -Precinct 42Precinct 42 | 603 | 2,717 | 31 | 3,351 | 18.0% | 81.1% | R+63.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 40Precinct 40 | 592 | 2,601 | 25 | 3,218 | 18.4% | 80.8% | R+62.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 19Precinct 19 | 550 | 2,625 | 39 | 3,214 | 17.1% | 81.7% | R+64.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 15Precinct 15 | 480 | 2,607 | 44 | 3,131 | 15.3% | 83.3% | R+67.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 58Precinct 58 | 804 | 2,254 | 45 | 3,103 | 25.9% | 72.6% | R+46.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 79Precinct 79 | 694 | 2,351 | 33 | 3,078 | 22.5% | 76.4% | R+53.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 30Precinct 30 | 531 | 2,390 | 40 | 2,961 | 17.9% | 80.7% | R+62.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 28Precinct 28 | 553 | 2,360 | 36 | 2,949 | 18.8% | 80.0% | R+61.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 44Precinct 44 | 918 | 1,686 | 31 | 2,635 | 34.8% | 64.0% | R+29.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 59Precinct 59 | 633 | 1,954 | 46 | 2,633 | 24.0% | 74.2% | R+50.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 31Precinct 31 | 396 | 2,183 | 19 | 2,598 | 15.2% | 84.0% | R+68.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 75Precinct 75 | 360 | 2,139 | 31 | 2,530 | 14.2% | 84.5% | R+70.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 56Precinct 56 | 696 | 1,712 | 50 | 2,458 | 28.3% | 69.7% | R+41.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 51Precinct 51 | 741 | 1,562 | 36 | 2,339 | 31.7% | 66.8% | R+35.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 41Precinct 41 | 295 | 1,886 | 17 | 2,198 | 13.4% | 85.8% | R+72.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 54Precinct 54 | 651 | 1,519 | 27 | 2,197 | 29.6% | 69.1% | R+39.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 26Precinct 26 | 338 | 1,810 | 19 | 2,167 | 15.6% | 83.5% | R+67.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 52Precinct 52 | 252 | 1,742 | 18 | 2,012 | 12.5% | 86.6% | R+74.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 5Precinct 5 | 211 | 1,665 | 20 | 1,896 | 11.1% | 87.8% | R+76.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 3Precinct 3 | 512 | 1,230 | 33 | 1,775 | 28.8% | 69.3% | R+40.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 10Precinct 10 | 868 | 894 | 11 | 1,773 | 49.0% | 50.4% | R+1.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 38Precinct 38 | 527 | 1,147 | 19 | 1,693 | 31.1% | 67.7% | R+36.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 45Precinct 45 | 204 | 1,465 | 15 | 1,684 | 12.1% | 87.0% | R+74.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 35Precinct 35 | 843 | 816 | 18 | 1,677 | 50.3% | 48.7% | D+1.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 64Precinct 64 | 294 | 1,361 | 15 | 1,670 | 17.6% | 81.5% | R+63.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 50Precinct 50 | 435 | 1,160 | 35 | 1,630 | 26.7% | 71.2% | R+44.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 24Precinct 24 | 267 | 1,333 | 24 | 1,624 | 16.4% | 82.1% | R+65.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 25Precinct 25 | 406 | 1,146 | 30 | 1,582 | 25.7% | 72.4% | R+46.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 23Precinct 23 | 504 | 1,023 | 29 | 1,556 | 32.4% | 65.7% | R+33.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 36Precinct 36 | 1,007 | 472 | 20 | 1,499 | 67.2% | 31.5% | D+35.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 37Precinct 37 | 271 | 1,192 | 11 | 1,474 | 18.4% | 80.9% | R+62.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 61Precinct 61 | 617 | 832 | 21 | 1,470 | 42.0% | 56.6% | R+14.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 7Precinct 7 | 286 | 1,073 | 15 | 1,374 | 20.8% | 78.1% | R+57.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 62Precinct 62 | 199 | 1,151 | 10 | 1,360 | 14.6% | 84.6% | R+70.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 29Precinct 29 | 254 | 1,094 | 8 | 1,356 | 18.7% | 80.7% | R+61.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 14Precinct 14 | 368 | 944 | 20 | 1,332 | 27.6% | 70.9% | R+43.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 27Precinct 27 | 431 | 821 | 16 | 1,268 | 34.0% | 64.7% | R+30.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 49Precinct 49 | 128 | 1,041 | 12 | 1,181 | 10.8% | 88.1% | R+77.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 21Precinct 21 | 298 | 829 | 26 | 1,153 | 25.8% | 71.9% | R+46.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 8Precinct 8 | 198 | 931 | 8 | 1,137 | 17.4% | 81.9% | R+64.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 17Precinct 17 | 127 | 990 | 12 | 1,129 | 11.2% | 87.7% | R+76.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 55Precinct 55 | 473 | 621 | 14 | 1,108 | 42.7% | 56.0% | R+13.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 43Precinct 43 | 311 | 621 | 18 | 950 | 32.7% | 65.4% | R+32.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 4Precinct 4 | 390 | 530 | 15 | 935 | 41.7% | 56.7% | R+15.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 11Precinct 11 | 618 | 291 | 6 | 915 | 67.5% | 31.8% | D+35.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 33Precinct 33 | 202 | 663 | 9 | 874 | 23.1% | 75.9% | R+52.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 85Precinct 85 | 113 | 738 | 7 | 858 | 13.2% | 86.0% | R+72.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 46Precinct 46 | 210 | 596 | 5 | 811 | 25.9% | 73.5% | R+47.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 13Precinct 13 | 683 | 62 | 18 | 763 | 89.5% | 8.1% | D+81.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 12Precinct 12 | 598 | 140 | 14 | 752 | 79.5% | 18.6% | D+60.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 34Precinct 34 | 525 | 203 | 8 | 736 | 71.3% | 27.6% | D+43.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 6Precinct 6 | 106 | 619 | 6 | 731 | 14.5% | 84.7% | R+70.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 74Precinct 74 | 174 | 513 | 9 | 696 | 25.0% | 73.7% | R+48.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 16Precinct 16 | 522 | 148 | 9 | 679 | 76.9% | 21.8% | D+55.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 18Precinct 18 | 494 | 105 | 3 | 602 | 82.1% | 17.4% | D+64.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 57Precinct 57 | 163 | 390 | 12 | 565 | 28.8% | 69.0% | R+40.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 48Precinct 48 | 217 | 320 | 6 | 543 | 40.0% | 58.9% | R+19.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 32Precinct 32 | 167 | 358 | 10 | 535 | 31.2% | 66.9% | R+35.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 63Precinct 63 | 88 | 388 | 8 | 484 | 18.2% | 80.2% | R+62.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 77Precinct 77 | 157 | 282 | 3 | 442 | 35.5% | 63.8% | R+28.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 66Precinct 66 | 179 | 254 | 3 | 436 | 41.1% | 58.3% | R+17.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 73Precinct 73 | 160 | 224 | 7 | 391 | 40.9% | 57.3% | R+16.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 76Precinct 76 | 226 | 109 | 4 | 339 | 66.7% | 32.2% | D+34.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 47Precinct 47 | 107 | 216 | 3 | 326 | 32.8% | 66.3% | R+33.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 60Precinct 60 | 124 | 192 | 2 | 318 | 39.0% | 60.4% | R+21.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 2Precinct 2 | 200 | 110 | 3 | 313 | 63.9% | 35.1% | D+28.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 20Precinct 20 | 162 | 134 | 5 | 301 | 53.8% | 44.5% | D+9.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 53Precinct 53 | 53 | 236 | 3 | 292 | 18.2% | 80.8% | R+62.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 39Precinct 39 | 139 | 83 | 3 | 225 | 61.8% | 36.9% | D+24.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 1Precinct 1 | 108 | 82 | 0 | 190 | 56.8% | 43.2% | D+13.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 22Precinct 22 | 96 | 81 | 2 | 179 | 53.6% | 45.3% | D+8.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 9Precinct 9 | 104 | 69 | 1 | 174 | 59.8% | 39.7% | D+20.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 81Precinct 81 | 83 | 66 | 2 | 151 | 55.0% | 43.7% | D+11.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 82Precinct 82 | 14 | 19 | 0 | 33 | 42.4% | 57.6% | R+15.2 |
Presidential margin, 1904–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1904 | +30.9% |
| 1908 | +39.0% |
| 1912 | +44.7% |
| 1916 | +47.4% |
| 1920 | +48.3% |
| 1924 | +59.3% |
| 1928 | −19.7% |
| 1932 | +81.4% |
| 1936 | +82.9% |
| 1940 | +71.6% |
| 1944 | +60.1% |
| 1948 | +29.1% |
| 1952 | −12.9% |
| 1956 | −30.8% |
| 1960 | −17.0% |
| 1964 | −1.9% |
| 1968 | −10.4% |
| 1972 | −49.1% |
| 1976 | −13.7% |
| 1980 | −30.7% |
| 1984 | −45.5% |
| 1988 | −29.7% |
| 1992 | −17.4% |
| 1996 | −25.9% |
| 2000 | −44.3% |
| 2004 | −45.4% |
| 2008 | −39.5% |
| 2012 | −45.1% |
| 2016 | −43.2% |
| 2020 | −39.3% |
| 2024 | −45.1% |
U.S. Senate
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 135,567 |
| 2018 | 135,935 |
| 2020 | 146,149 |
| 2022 | 153,936 |
| 2024 | 162,009 |
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
+2,112 net domestic migration · 2025
Net +25,305 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $67,572 in average income, against $90,967 for residents who stayed — 26% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+32.4 on average — 13 points more Democratic-leaning than Smith County, TX itself (R+45.1).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Gregg County, TX386R+42.2
- Dallas County, TX382D+22.2
- Henderson County, TX358R+63.5
- Cherokee County, TX352R+62.7
- Van Zandt County, TX262R+74.8
- Tarrant County, TX253R+5.1
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Cherokee County, TX425
- Dallas County, TX421
- Henderson County, TX340
- Gregg County, TX328
- Tarrant County, TX253
- Rusk County, TX209
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 | +1,031 |
| 2012 | +808 |
| 2013 | +357 |
| 2014 | +1,649 |
| 2015 | +1,404 |
| 2016 | +1,474 |
| 2017 | +822 |
| 2018 | +1,660 |
| 2019 | +2,120 |
| 2021 | +3,079 |
| 2022 | +4,261 |
| 2023 | +2,521 |
| 2024 | +2,007 |
| 2025 | +2,112 |
Home to Tyler, Smith County has delivered Republican presidential margins above 40 points in recent cycles, with a population mix of medical-sector workers, retirees, and rural residents that has kept the county well to the right of statewide averages.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 82.9 points in 1936 and a Republican high of 49.1 points in 1972. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 5.7 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 45.1 points.
A population of 241,740, a 58% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $74,192 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Taylor County and Midland 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 →
Smith County, Texas. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/48423/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.