- Lead
- 24,246
- Total
- 36,338
- vs nation
- R+65.3
- Turnout
- 58.4%
Orange County, TX
President margin by year
Place winner margin
President results by year
2024 turnout 58.4% of 62,440 citizens 18+
- Lead
- 22,829
- Total
- 35,994
- vs nation
- R+67.9
- Turnout
- 58.7%
- Lead
- 19,778
- Total
- 32,000
- vs nation
- R+63.9
- Turnout
- 52.2%
- Lead
- 16,566
- Total
- 30,695
- vs nation
- R+57.8
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 13,863
- Total
- 29,406
- vs nation
- R+54.4
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 8,816
- Total
- 31,908
- vs nation
- R+25.2
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 5,438
- Total
- 29,654
- vs nation
- R+18.9
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 1,181
- Total
- 29,311
- vs nation
- R+4.5
- Turnout
- —
Key facts
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+66.7MIT Election Lab
- Population
- 85,3072024 5-year
- Median household income
- $72,1042024 5-year
- White (non-Hispanic)
- 76.8%2024 5-year
- Black
- 7.6%2024 5-year
- Hispanic / Latino
- 9.6%2024 5-year
- Peak Democratic margin
- D+84.3 in 1936MIT Election Lab
- Peak Republican margin
- R+66.7 in 2024MIT Election Lab
- Most similar
- Hardin County, TX · twin score 91.4
Midterm durability
Total general-election participants divided by same-year citizen voting-age population. These are total ballots or participating voters—not presidential candidate votes.
- 2024 total turnout
- 58.4%36,454 participants ÷ 62,440 CVAP
- 2020→2022 drop-off
- +18.0 ptsVolatile
- Drop-off versus state
- -1.1 ptsPositive means a larger decline than the statewide pattern
- Mechanical 2026 scenario
- 40.4%–44.7%Recent-cycle and two-cycle persistence scenarios; not a forecast
| Election | Participants | CVAP | Turnout | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 · Presidential | 32,335 | 61,892 | 52.2% | A/A |
| 2018 · Midterm | 26,409 | 61,568 | 42.9% | A/A |
| 2020 · Presidential | 36,090 | 61,487 | 58.7% | A/A |
| 2022 · Midterm | 25,262 | 62,029 | 40.7% | A/A |
| 2024 · Presidential | 36,454 | 62,440 | 58.4% | A/A |
Sources and methods
- 2016: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 293/111.
- 2018: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 297/138.
- 2020: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 301/2.
- 2022: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 306/183.
- 2024: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 311/228.
Precinct data
Results by precinct
34 precincts · 36,377 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -Precinct 28Precinct 28 | 242 | 2,168 | 10 | 2,420 | 10.0% | 89.6% | R+79.6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -Precinct 23Precinct 23 | 203 | 2,019 | 6 | 2,228 | 9.1% | 90.6% | R+81.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 16Precinct 16 | 139 | 1,697 | 15 | 1,851 | 7.5% | 91.7% | R+84.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 8Precinct 8 | 259 | 1,539 | 11 | 1,809 | 14.3% | 85.1% | R+70.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 9Precinct 9 | 213 | 1,345 | 4 | 1,562 | 13.6% | 86.1% | R+72.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 26Precinct 26 | 186 | 1,290 | 10 | 1,486 | 12.5% | 86.8% | R+74.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 32Precinct 32 | 110 | 1,362 | 5 | 1,477 | 7.4% | 92.2% | R+84.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 27Precinct 27 | 151 | 1,267 | 10 | 1,428 | 10.6% | 88.7% | R+78.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 18Precinct 18 | 170 | 1,175 | 9 | 1,354 | 12.6% | 86.8% | R+74.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 17Precinct 17 | 116 | 1,198 | 8 | 1,322 | 8.8% | 90.6% | R+81.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 31Precinct 31 | 120 | 1,162 | 13 | 1,295 | 9.3% | 89.7% | R+80.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 15Precinct 15 | 245 | 956 | 7 | 1,208 | 20.3% | 79.1% | R+58.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 6Precinct 6 | 201 | 985 | 8 | 1,194 | 16.8% | 82.5% | R+65.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 25Precinct 25 | 137 | 1,043 | 7 | 1,187 | 11.5% | 87.9% | R+76.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 7Precinct 7 | 282 | 872 | 11 | 1,165 | 24.2% | 74.8% | R+50.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 33Precinct 33 | 130 | 973 | 12 | 1,115 | 11.7% | 87.3% | R+75.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 34Precinct 34 | 121 | 969 | 9 | 1,099 | 11.0% | 88.2% | R+77.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 24Precinct 24 | 103 | 967 | 7 | 1,077 | 9.6% | 89.8% | R+80.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 14Precinct 14 | 323 | 721 | 5 | 1,049 | 30.8% | 68.7% | R+37.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 19Precinct 19 | 128 | 906 | 9 | 1,043 | 12.3% | 86.9% | R+74.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 20Precinct 20 | 120 | 816 | 10 | 946 | 12.7% | 86.3% | R+73.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 5Precinct 5 | 429 | 438 | 7 | 874 | 49.1% | 50.1% | R+1.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 30Precinct 30 | 82 | 663 | 8 | 753 | 10.9% | 88.0% | R+77.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 13Precinct 13 | 262 | 466 | 2 | 730 | 35.9% | 63.8% | R+27.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 29Precinct 29 | 65 | 644 | 6 | 715 | 9.1% | 90.1% | R+81.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 12Precinct 12 | 150 | 548 | 6 | 704 | 21.3% | 77.8% | R+56.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 22Precinct 22 | 86 | 614 | 4 | 704 | 12.2% | 87.2% | R+75.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 3Precinct 3 | 477 | 118 | 3 | 598 | 79.8% | 19.7% | D+60.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 10Precinct 10 | 107 | 475 | 5 | 587 | 18.2% | 80.9% | R+62.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 2Precinct 2 | 338 | 237 | 4 | 579 | 58.4% | 40.9% | D+17.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 11Precinct 11 | 70 | 243 | 5 | 318 | 22.0% | 76.4% | R+54.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 1Precinct 1 | 26 | 169 | 1 | 196 | 13.3% | 86.2% | R+73.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 21Precinct 21 | 23 | 131 | 2 | 156 | 14.7% | 84.0% | R+69.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 4Precinct 4 | 131 | 15 | 2 | 148 | 88.5% | 10.1% | D+78.4 |
Presidential margin, 1904–2024
Democratic minus Republican, by election
| Year | Margin (D minus R) |
|---|---|
| 1904 | +48.2% |
| 1908 | +62.0% |
| 1912 | +79.5% |
| 1916 | +75.4% |
| 1920 | +72.1% |
| 1924 | +45.3% |
| 1928 | +15.1% |
| 1932 | +84.0% |
| 1936 | +84.3% |
| 1940 | +78.6% |
| 1944 | +61.5% |
| 1948 | +58.3% |
| 1952 | +17.5% |
| 1956 | +3.6% |
| 1960 | +24.6% |
| 1964 | +20.3% |
| 1968 | +2.8% |
| 1972 | −29.6% |
| 1976 | +24.6% |
| 1980 | +9.1% |
| 1984 | +4.4% |
| 1988 | +19.6% |
| 1992 | +17.0% |
| 1996 | +4.0% |
| 2000 | −18.3% |
| 2004 | −27.6% |
| 2008 | −47.1% |
| 2012 | −54.0% |
| 2016 | −61.8% |
| 2020 | −63.4% |
| 2024 | −66.7% |
U.S. House
Each row shows U.S. House votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
U.S. Senate
Each row shows U.S. Senate votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
U.S. Senate special elections
Each row shows U.S. Senate special votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
Governor
Each row shows Governor votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 53,064 |
| 2018 | 53,278 |
| 2020 | 54,442 |
| 2022 | 55,008 |
| 2024 | 56,232 |
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
+220 net domestic migration · 2025
Net +1,451 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $53,373 in average income, against $78,169 for residents who stayed — 32% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+25.9 on average — 41 points more Democratic-leaning than Orange County, TX itself (R+66.7).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Jefferson County, TX557R+8.9
- Harris County, TX175D+5.5
- Hardin County, TX133R+75.8
- Calcasieu Parish, LA113R+39.6
- Jasper County, TX87R+66.6
- Newton County, TX48R+66.6
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Jefferson County, TX463
- Harris County, TX151
- Hardin County, TX135
- Calcasieu Parish, LA118
- Jasper County, TX97
- Newton County, TX56
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 | +230 |
| 2012 | +360 |
| 2013 | −233 |
| 2014 | +290 |
| 2015 | +442 |
| 2016 | +356 |
| 2017 | +325 |
| 2018 | −1,513 |
| 2019 | −147 |
| 2021 | +17 |
| 2022 | +457 |
| 2023 | +559 |
| 2024 | +88 |
| 2025 | +220 |
Anchored by the Sabine River petrochemical corridor, Orange County has delivered Republican presidential margins above 60 points in consecutive cycles, reflecting a heavily white, blue-collar electorate shaped by refinery and industrial employment.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 84.3 points in 1936 and a Republican high of 66.7 points in 2024. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 3.3 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 66.7 points.
A population of 85,307, a 77% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $72,104 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Hardin County and Livingston Parish.
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 →
Orange County, Texas. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/48361/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.