Mid-Decade Congressional Redistricting Efforts Intensify Across U.S. States

U.S. states are engaged in extensive mid-decade congressional redistricting efforts, influencing the composition of the U.S. House of Representatives ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. These actions, often driven by partisan objectives, have led to significant legal challenges, including rulings by federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court concerning claims of racial and partisan gerrymandering. Both Republican and Democratic-controlled states have initiated processes to redraw district maps, aiming to secure electoral advantages.

Context of Redistricting

Redistricting typically occurs at the start of each decade following the national census, which determines the allocation of the 435 U.S. House seats among states. Each district represents approximately 760,000 people. The current cycle has seen an accelerated pace of mid-decade redistricting, an unusual occurrence.

Gerrymandering, the practice of drawing district lines to favor a particular political party or group, is often a central aspect of these efforts.

While partisan gerrymandering is not prohibited at the federal level, racial gerrymandering—drawing lines to dilute the voting power of a racial group—is illegal under the federal Voting Rights Act.

Key State Actions and Outcomes

Texas

Texas, a Republican-controlled state, enacted a new congressional map. A three-judge federal panel temporarily blocked this map, concluding it likely constituted racial gerrymandering by intentionally targeting Black and Latino voters, violating the Voting Rights Act. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed this ruling, asserting the claims of discrimination were unfounded and the map was legal.

The U.S. Supreme Court initially issued a temporary block on the lower court's ruling and subsequently authorized Texas to use its newly drawn map. This map is projected to result in five additional seats for the Republican Party.

California

California voters approved a new congressional map via a special election, which was initiated by Democratic leaders. This map is projected to shift five seats towards Democrats.

The California Republican Party and the U.S. Department of Justice challenged the map, alleging it violated laws against racial gerrymandering by increasing the voting power of Latino citizens. A federal court upheld the map, stating that while it was a "political gerrymander" designed to flip Republican-held seats, voters approved it on partisan grounds, and there was no evidence they acted on racial grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block the plan, allowing its use for the upcoming elections.

Virginia

Virginia's Democratic-led legislature sought to pass a constitutional amendment allowing the redrawing of congressional maps, with the potential to yield two to four additional seats for Democrats. This effort faced multiple legal challenges.

Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. initially ruled the proposed amendment and referendum process illegal due to procedural non-compliance. However, the Virginia Supreme Court subsequently overruled this decision, allowing the referendum, scheduled for April 21, to proceed. Virginia's current districts were imposed by a court after a bipartisan commission failed to agree on a map following the 2020 census.

Maryland

In Maryland, a Democratic-controlled state, the House of Delegates approved a new congressional map by a 99-37 vote. This map is designed to potentially enable Democrats to secure all eight of Maryland's districts, aiming to defeat the state's sole Republican House member. Governor Wes Moore supported this redistricting effort.

However, Democratic Senate President Bill Ferguson expressed opposition, citing concerns about potential legal challenges and the risk of a new map backfiring, as a 2021 map was previously ruled unconstitutional. The legislation's prospects in the state Senate remain uncertain.

Other States' Efforts

• Missouri: Republican lawmakers passed a new map that divides Kansas City, a Democratic area, into Republican-leaning districts, with lawsuits ongoing. The map is projected to gain one seat for Republicans.
• North Carolina: A new map approved by the Republican-controlled legislature could affect a Democratic-held seat. A federal court allowed this map to be used.
• Ohio: A state commission approved plans that could result in one to two additional seats for Republicans.
• Utah: A state judge dismissed a Republican-drawn map as unfairly tilted and adopted an alternative map that preserves a Democratic-leaning district. This could lead to a gain of one Democratic seat. Republicans have appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, and two Republican congressmen have filed a federal lawsuit.
• Florida: Governor Ron DeSantis has urged the Republican-controlled legislature to proceed with redistricting to potentially gain two to five Republican seats. Discussions have begun, but Florida has state laws prohibiting partisan gerrymandering, and federal Voting Rights Act provisions may influence outcomes. A special legislative session is planned for April.
• Indiana: The state House passed a new map with a potential for two additional Republican seats. The bill awaits action in the Senate, where some Republicans have expressed differing views.
• New York: A state judge ruled that a district illegally diluted the voting power of Black and Latino voters and ordered an independent redistricting commission to create new maps. Appeals are ongoing.

Broader Legal and Political Landscape

The ability to redistrict for political advantage often depends on which party controls the state legislature. Republicans currently control a greater number of state legislatures nationwide, providing more opportunities for partisan redistricting. Conversely, many Democratic-led states have established commissions or implemented legal frameworks designed to reduce partisan influence on the redistricting process.

Legal challenges are a significant factor in these redistricting efforts. Beyond the state-specific cases, the U.S. Supreme Court is also reviewing a voting rights case originating from Louisiana. The outcome of this case could potentially influence existing interpretations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting, and impact the scope of permissible redistricting under federal law.

Estimates suggest that redistricting could result in a net shift of congressional seats, with figures varying based on pending court decisions and state legislative actions.

The current U.S. House of Representatives is closely divided, and the outcomes of these redistricting processes are anticipated to be a factor in the 2026 midterm elections.