you are reading state court report Biweekly newsletter. Subscribe to get it in your inbox.
State courts are increasingly at the center of legal and political battles over electoral districts. In the past two weeks, there have been several major state rulings related to mid-decade redistricting efforts. And now, following a Supreme Court ruling, southern states have passed maps. louisiana vs curry The decision has sparked a new wave of lawsuits. The situation is as follows.
The biggest news in the country is virginiathe state Supreme Court blocked a constitutional amendment that would have allowed Democrats in the state Legislature to redraw the state’s congressional maps. The court’s 4-3 decision came after the amendment had already been passed, and just as several Southern states were drawing new maps after enacting their constitutions.chalice. The decision sparked sharp criticism and muddied expectations regarding the midterm elections.
As Steptoe’s Laura Niday explains in an article, the legal issues before the court were related to the state constitutional amendment process. state court report analysis. Virginia’s constitutional amendment process is relatively difficult. The amendment must be passed by the state Legislature and passed again after the next general election before it goes to voters.
The problem was that 1.3 million Virginians had already voted for General Assembly candidates, and the amendment was first passed during early voting for the October 2025 general election. The court ruled that this early voting period was part of the general election, meaning that the necessary intervening election had not occurred prior to the second passage of the amendment.
In its reasoning, the court focused on the purpose behind the amendment: to give Virginia an opportunity to consider the amendment during a vote by its legislators, who would have to pass it twice. If Congress passes an amendment after early voting has already begun, those who voted before it passed will be denied the opportunity. Opponents argued that the court was expanding the meaning of elections in a way that contradicts both federal and state law.
The court also addressed the reason for waiting to rule until after the referendum. The lawsuit pointed to long-standing state precedent that courts can intervene only at the end of the amendment process, as well as Virginia’s own position in cases where the state has argued the courts must wait. The court’s ruling means Virginians will vote this year based on the state’s existing congressional map, but it could also lead to a new effort to change the constitution for 2028.
in missourithe state Supreme Court issued two redistricting decisions last week rejecting efforts to block the use of new congressional maps passed in 2025. Maggard vs. Statethe court rejected a bid to halt the use of the map until voters had a chance to consider a referendum to overturn it. Plaintiffs relied on the right to vote in the Missouri Constitution. The referendum gives Missourians the right to approve or reject acts of the state Legislature, and provides that only the challenged measures go into effect. rear Voters approve it. The state argued that the provision had not yet been triggered because the referendum had been submitted to the Secretary of State, but the signatures had not yet been certified.
The plaintiffs argued that the only way to accomplish the state constitution’s voting rights purpose was to automatically suspend the maps pending signature review by the Secretary of State. There remained a hint that the Secretary of State was slowing down the process. The court responded that there was no dispute that the Secretary of State was acting within the legally recognized deadline for approving the referendum, and held that an automatic suspension triggered by the submission of a referendum was inconsistent with the text of the Constitution.
in Healy vs. Statethe Missouri Superior Court also rejected arguments that the map violated state constitutional requirements regarding contiguity and compactness. And although the plaintiffs did not raise a claim that the map was a partisan gerrymander, the court expressed dictum skepticism about whether such a claim was valid. On May 27, the Missouri Supreme Court is scheduled to hear another case challenging the map, arguing that the governor lacked the authority to call the special session in which the map was passed.
When I looked at the post,chalice Map, 3 lawsuits florida They object to the state’s new congressional maps, pointing to a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit drawing districts that favor incumbents or political parties. Defendants argue that the amendment no longer has the force of law, that the amendment’s anti-discrimination provisions violate the U.S. Constitution by requiring racial preference in redistricting, and that the partisan gerrymandering provisions cannot be severed from the whole. The trial court held a preliminary injunction hearing on Friday. Expect this case to move quickly.
in tennesseeplaintiff of NAACP v. State of Tennessee They argue that the Legislature did not have the authority to change state law banning redistricting in the middle of the decade during a special session called by the governor that passed a new legislative map. The state constitution requires the governor to “specify” the purpose of the special session and requires the legislature to limit its business to those listed in the governor’s proclamation. Because the mid-decade redistricting law was not certified as part of the special session, the plaintiffs argue that Congress did not have the authority to act on it. (Tennessee’s map is also at issue in a series of federal lawsuits.)
on the other hand, louisianathe plaintiffs unsuccessfully tried to prevent state officials from halting state legislative primaries so that the Legislature could redistrict districts after the election. chalice. Judges in both cases denied temporary restraining orders.
Sometimes three weeks can feel like a year. the aftermath of louisiana vs curry It felt like more than 10 years had passed. Please expect many more cases to appear in the future.
Alicia Bannon is the editor-in-chief State Court Report. She is also the director of justice programs at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Recommended quote: Alicia Bannon Redistricting lawsuits intensifySᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 21, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/redistricting-litigation-heats
