Not since the 1800s have so many states attempted to redraw U.S. House district lines without a new census.
Supreme Court allows Texas Republican map drawing in 2026 election
The Supreme Court has allowed Texas to use a Republican-friendly congressional map in the 2026 midterm elections despite claims of racial bias.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has allowed Texas Republicans to redraw the state’s legislative map, igniting a national partisan arms race over who will hold key levels of power in Washington during the final two years of President Donald Trump’s second term.
But political and legal experts say it’s not yet clear whether the Supreme Court’s decision means Democrats or Republicans stand to benefit most after the 2026 midterm elections.
So far, six states have redrawn the maps that determine who voters can vote for to represent them in the U.S. House of Representatives. At least eight more states are considering it in what the National Conference of State Legislatures calls the biggest disruption of such activities since the 1800s. The new map could pit current House members against each other or open the door for new candidates.
Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court’s decision is “a green light for further redistricting and a strong message to challenge lower courts.”
Here’s what you need to know about redistricting in states across the country.
What did the Texas Supreme Court rule?
The decision in the Texas case was not signed, but because the election was so close, it allowed the state’s redrawn congressional maps to remain in place until 2026.
The ruling builds on another 2019 high court ruling that held partisan maps cannot be challenged, even if racist maps can. The case was urgent because of the Dec. 8 filing deadline for Lone Star State candidates.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote to Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch that the impetus for the new Texas map, like the map later adopted in California, was not along racial lines but “pure and simple partisan advantage.”
But Justice Elena Kagan wrote to Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson that a nine-day hearing in a lower court that drew nearly two dozen witnesses and thousands of exhibits found that “Texas sharply divided its people along racial lines to create a new Republican-leaning House map.”
The liberal justices said the high court’s decision “gives all states the opportunity to conduct illegal elections.”
What was your reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision?
Reaction to the decision was predictably divided along partisan lines.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said it was evidence of the determination that “extremists will do anything to rig the midterm elections.” He called the Texas map a “partisan, racist power grab” designed to hurt Black and Latino communities.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the decision upholds the state’s “fundamental right to draw maps that guarantee Republican representation.”
“Texas is paving the way to take back our country, district by district, state by state,” Paxton said.
What other states have redrawn their congressional boundaries?
Under the Constitution, each state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives is determined by the U.S. population census, which is compiled every 10 years. Congressional maps are traditionally redrawn as population changes. The movement to redraw the map in the mid-2010s is unusual.
President Trump has called on Republican-led states to redistrict their districts to protect the narrow House majority of 220 Republicans and 213 Democrats. Two seats previously held by Democrats are now vacant in New Jersey and Texas.
Six states have already drawn new maps: Texas, California, Ohio, North Carolina, Missouri, and Utah. Texas and California are each projected to lose five seats to the majority party. In Ohio, two Democratic-held seats could flip to Republicans. North Carolina’s map was designed to flip one seat for Republicans. Missouri dismantled the Kansas City-based Democratic seat. Utah’s maps are still being contested in court, but one of the state’s four seats could be held by a Democrat.
Damon Hewitt, chairman of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told USA TODAY that states should think twice about adopting racially sensitive maps because they will face intense scrutiny.
“Voters don’t want democracy to be overturned,” Hewitt said. “People want to have the power to choose their own elected officials, rather than watch politicians carefully choose who they can vote for in their districts based on racially tainted maps.”
At least eight other states are debating whether to redraw their congressional maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Virginia is debating a constitutional amendment for new maps that could give Democrats a few seats. Florida began a redistricting drive on Dec. 4 aimed at undermining the chances of a few Democratic incumbents, but no one has yet proposed a map. Maryland is also considering new maps that could hurt Republicans’ chances in certain districts.
Additionally, four states – Alabama, Louisiana, New York and North Dakota – considered whether to draw new maps while awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision on Texas.
‘Hardliners’ debate redistricting in Indiana lawmakers
Indiana is at the center of debate, with a proposed map aimed at eliminating two Democratic seats and fielding an all-Republican nine-member delegation. The state House of Representatives approved the plan on Dec. 5, but state Senate Republicans are divided and the proposal is expected to fail.
“Our voices are being drowned out by other states who are exploiting the redistricting process for their own left-wing interests,” said state Attorney General Todd Rokita. “Stop bringing knives to gunfights.”
President Trump called lawmakers and Vice President J.D. Vance visited the state. Lawmakers opposed to the rezoning have faced at least a dozen death threats, bomb threats and fake emergency calls.
Julia Vaughn, executive director of Common Cause of Indiana, which lobbies against redistricting, told USA TODAY that the debate was the most intense political battle she’s seen in her 40 years in the state Legislature.
“That kind of heavy-handedness has no place in Indiana,” Vaughn said. “I’m not saying people aren’t scared. You can read the fear on people’s faces. The threat is real and it’s having an impact, but I think it’s backfiring.”
Without the action taken by Texas, the Indiana General Assembly would not have called a special session in December, Vaughn said.
“Certainly what’s happening in other states has caused this,” Vaughn said. “If Texas hadn’t started this whole thing, we wouldn’t be in this position. It’s really unfortunate that this is all an outsider’s fault.”
‘Big money’: Investigation reveals 2025 election costs recorded
The redistricting comes at a time of record spending for the 2025 election, according to a study by New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.
New Jersey’s gubernatorial race is likely to be the most expensive election in history, exceeding $200 million, surpassing the previous high of $144 million, according to research by Ian Vandewalker. Virginia’s $102 million gubernatorial race was the second-highest in state history.
California’s redistricting ballot measure cost nearly $140 million, making it the seventh most expensive measure in state history. In Pennsylvania, elections were held to decide whether to grant 10-year terms to three of the state’s seven Supreme Court justices, and campaign spending exceeded $15 million, up from a previous record of $1.5 million.
“This is a sign that campaign costs continue to rise in state and local elections, fueled by big money from around the country and a sense of high stakes even in offices not normally considered of national importance,” VandeWalker wrote.
Other Supreme Court cases could also impact 2026 midterm elections
Other potential court changes are also in the works regarding how elections are handled.
In October, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The law is intended to prevent congressional maps from diluting minority votes by crowding them into one district or spreading them across too many districts.
A decision is expected to be made by June. Hasen, the election law professor, said further redistricting could be approved closer to the election if the high court “wateres down or repeals” parts of the law.
The justices also agreed to hear two other election lawsuits over vote-counting deadlines and campaign finance limits.
Republicans oppose counting ballots mailed after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then. The party successfully challenged a Mississippi law that allowed postmarked ballots to arrive within five business days of Election Day and still be counted.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states have granted such grace periods to all voters, and a high court ruling could ultimately overturn them.
Another lawsuit deals with a 2001 decision to limit the amount of money political parties can spend on advertising and other messages in collaboration with federal candidates.
Republicans, including Vance, are challenging the ruling, which the Trump administration says is indefensible. But Democrats say the limits should remain in place to prevent corruption. The incident comes amid record campaign spending in recent elections.
