As states vie for partisan advantage through redistricting, political observers are finding it difficult to determine which side will have an advantage heading into the 2026 midterm elections.
Will redistricting efforts favor Republicans or Democrats?
The question many are wondering is whether the 2025 redistricting efforts are meant to protect democracy or weaken representation.
WASHINGTON – At the urging of President Donald Trump, Texas is sending more Republicans to Congress.
For that to happen, the U.S. Supreme Court would need to take sides in a rapidly developing dispute involving more than half a dozen other states in which the nation’s most populous Republican state seeks to change who voters can cast their votes for in the 2026 midterm elections.
The clock is ticking for the justices to take action by Dec. 8, a key deadline for Texas legislative candidates to declare which House races they will run next November. Nationally, the stakes are high for both Republicans and Democrats. A change in control of just a few seats could upset the balance of power in the House during Trump’s final two years in the White House. Republicans currently hold a narrow 219-213 majority.
What’s unusual about the Supreme Court case is that states typically review their congressional maps after counting their populations in the decennial U.S. Census. But states like Texas, which is undergoing a flurry of redistricting in the middle of the decade, are undergoing one of the largest redistricting operations since the 1800s, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Here’s what you need to know about redistricting positions in states across the country.
Which states are redistricting?
Six states have already adopted new congressional maps: California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Utah.
Additionally, Virginia Democrats are taking steps toward redistricting in Richmond, and Republican leaders in the Florida Legislature are preparing for action in December. Pressure is also mounting on Maryland’s Democratic leaders. Depending on the court’s response, four other states – Alabama, Louisiana, New York and North Dakota – could also take action.
Taken together, the range of potential changes in the 2026 election is so large that political observers are finding it difficult to determine which party will have an advantage in races where the president’s party has historically not performed well.
“The story of the House race is heavily driven by mid-cycle redistricting, with new developments emerging almost daily, making it difficult to assess the overall picture,” said Kyle Kondik, editor-in-chief of Sabbat Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
What happened in Texas?
In August, the Republican-led Texas Legislature adopted an electoral map that flips up to five Democratic-held seats to Republicans.
A federal court blocked the map’s release last week. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, ruled that “ultimately prompting” the redrawing of Texas’ boundaries was a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice urging state officials to “introduce racial considerations into what Texas claims is a racially agnostic process.”
“Instead, this letter orders the state of Texas to redraw four electoral districts for one reason alone: the racial demographics of voters living in Texas,” Brown wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito temporarily put those decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considers the case, leaving the new maps in place.
The lawsuit is urgent because Texas’ filing deadline for 2026 candidates is Dec. 8.
What happened in California?
In response to Republican redistricting in Texas, California Democrats, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, have redrawn the state’s maps, flipping up to five seats currently held by Republicans.
On November 4, California voters passed Proposition 50, a constitutional amendment that would allow for redistricting. The Trump administration is challenging the move in court.
“After I poked the bear, this bear roared,” Newsom said of the ballot initiative.
Supreme Court finds partisan gerrymandering is ‘beyond the court’s jurisdiction’
Federal courts have been grappling with gerrymandering, the practice of rewriting political maps to benefit one side, for decades. The core of the legal issue has shifted from partisan disputes to racial allegations.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that courts cannot rule on partisan gerrymandering claims because the Constitution gives state legislatures and Congress the power to decide electoral maps.
“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political issues beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 5-4 majority.
However, legal challenges to allegations of racial discrimination remain possible.
“In two areas: one person, one vote and racial gerrymandering, our case finds that there is a role for the court with respect to at least some issues that may arise from states’ allocation of congressional districts,” Roberts wrote.
What is happening in other states?
Redistricting battles are being waged in states other than Texas, the most populous Republican state, and California, the most populous Democratic state. The situation at the National Conference of State Legislatures is summarized as follows.
- The Virginia General Assembly passed an amendment authorizing redistricting on Oct. 31, but lawmakers must act during the 2026 session to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot.
- Indiana Gov. Mike Brown has expressed interest in redistricting, but legislative leaders say they don’t yet have the votes to support the move.
- The Florida Legislature established a redistricting commission in August, but lawmakers have yet to recommend a new map.
- Maryland Governor Wes Moore reinstated the Redistricting Advisory Commission to recommend new maps.
