AUSTIN — Plaintiffs in the Texas redistricting case are asking a federal district court in San Antonio to place the state back under federal supervision of its election laws.

It's a move that, if successful, would again block Texas from changing state voting laws and procedures without federal approval.

The request was made Wednesday afternoon in a filing to the San Antonio district court panel overseeing the redistricting case. Wednesday was the deadline for the parties to tell the judges what issues remain after the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to San Antonio in June.

The plaintiffs have been asking the three-judge panel since last year to place the state back under federal supervision. On Wednesday, they re-upped their request for "pre-clearance," as the required federal approval is known.

"Every Texan has the constitutional right for their vote to count," state Rep. Rafael Anchia, a Dallas Democrat and chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, said in a written statement. "Reinstating pre-clearance is a standard that the Texas Legislature should be required to meet after their record of multiple findings of discriminatory effect and intent since 2011. Texas voters deserve better."

The request is significant. In 2013, a Supreme Court ruling did away with parts of the federal Voting Rights Act that had required Texas and other Southern states with a history of discrimination to receive "pre-clearance" from the federal government before making changes to their voting laws. If the San Antonio court granted the plaintiffs' request, Texas would be the first state brought back under federal supervision since the landmark decision.

The plaintiffs say there's a clear need to rein in the state, demonstrated in multiple findings of discriminatory effect and intent in the redistricting case and another lawsuit on the state's voter ID law.

They argue that they are fighting to ensure that minorities, who generally vote for Democrats, are fairly represented when voting in elections. Republican state leaders say the districts are fair and drawn without discriminatory intent.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office, which has defended the Legislature's actions in both cases, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The state strongly opposed the plaintiffs' previous request to bring the state back under federal supervision.

In June, after a seven-year legal battle, the Supreme Court ruled that most of the statehouse and congressional districts the plaintiffs challenged as discriminatory were legal and did not need to be changed. The San Antonio court had ruled that those districts, drawn in 2013, discriminated against minorities and did so intentionally. The state initially had to redraw those districts after a court ruling that the maps the Legislature drew in 2011 were racially biased.

The Supreme Court decision states that only one district drawn in 2013 needs a redo: a Fort Worth district now held by Democratic state Rep. Ramon Romero. It was ruled to be a racial gerrymander.

In addition to ruling on the plaintiffs' pre-clearance request, the San Antonio court will determine how to redraw Romero's House district boundaries to address the racial discrimination.