Not since the 1800s have so many states tried to redraw U.S. House district boundaries without a new Census.
Supreme Court allows Texas GOP map for 2026 elections
Supreme Court allows Texas to use a congressional map with Republican advantage for 2026 midterms despite racial bias claims.
WASHINGTON – By allowing Texas Republicans to redraw the state’s congressional map, the Supreme Court has kickstarted a nationwide partisan arms race over who holds a critical level of power in Washington during the final two years of President Donald Trump’s second term.
But political and legal experts say it’s still not clear yet whether the Supreme Court’s decision means Democrats or Republicans stand to benefit the most for the 2026 midterm elections and beyond.
To date, six states have redrawn their maps that determine who voters can vote for to represent them in the U.S. House. At least another eight states are considering it in what the National Conference of State Legislatures calls the biggest flurry of such activity since the 1800s. The new maps could force current House members to run against each other or open doors to new candidates.
Rick Hasen, an election-law professor at the University of California Los Angeles, called the Supreme Court’s decision “a green light for there to be even more re-redistricting, and a strong message to lower courts to butt-out.”
Here is what to know about redistricting in states across the country:
What did the Supreme Court decide in Texas?
The decision in the Texas case was unsigned but allowed the state’s redrawn congressional map to stand for 2026 because that election was so close.
It relied on a separate 2019 high court ruling that found partisan maps cannot be challenged, even if racially discriminatory maps could be. The case was urgent because of the Dec. 8 filing deadline for Lone Star State candidates.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch that the impetus for the new Texas map, like a map subsequently adopted in California, “was partisan advantage pure and simple” rather than along racial lines.
But Justice Elena Kagan wrote for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson that a nine-day hearing in the lower court with nearly two dozen witnesses and thousands of exhibits found “Texas largely divided its citizens along racial lines to create its new pro-Republican House map.”
The liberal justices said the high court’s decision “gives every State the opportunity to hold an unlawful election.”
What was the reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision?
Reaction to the decision broke predictably along partisan lines.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York called the decision proof that “extremists will do anything to rig the midterm elections.” He described the Texas map as a “partisan and racially discriminatory power grab” to hurt the Black and Latino communities.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the decision upholds the state’s “fundamental right to draw a map that ensures we are represented by Republicans.”
“Texas is paving the way as we take our country back, district by district, state by state,” Paxton said.
What other states have redrawn their congressional lines?
Under the Constitution, the Census of the U.S. population counted every decade determines how many House seats each state has. Congressional maps are traditionally redrawn then to adjust for shifts in population. The push to redraw maps in the middle of the decade is unusual.
Trump urged GOP-led states to redistrict to protect the narrow House majority with 220 seats held by Republicans and 213 by Democrats. Two seats previously held by Democrats are currently vacant in New Jersey and Texas.
Six states – Texas, California, Ohio, North Carolina, Missouri and Utah – have already drawn new maps. Texas and California each expect to tip five seats to their majority parties. Ohio could flip two Democratic-held seats to the GOP. North Carolina’s map was designed to flip one seat to Republicans. Missouri dismantled a Democratic seat based in Kansas City. Utah’s map remains disputed in court but could create one Democratic seat among the state’s four.
Damon Hewitt, president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told USA TODAY that states should think twice about adopting racially gerrymandered maps because they will face serious scrutiny.
“Voters don’t want to see democracy turned on its head,” Hewitt said. “People want to have the power to pick their elected officials, not watch politicians cherry pick who gets to vote 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 a new map that could allow Democrats to pick up a couple of seats. Florida kicked off its redistricting push Dec. 4 aiming to hurt the chances of two or three Democratic incumbents, but nobody has proposed any maps yet. Maryland is also considering a new map to potentially hurt Republican chances in one district.
Four more states – Alabama, Louisiana, New York and North Dakota – weighed whether to draw new maps while awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision for Texas.
‘Hard-ball stuff’ in Indiana, as lawmakers debate redistricting
Indiana is in the thick of the debate, with a proposed map aims to wipe out two Democratic seats, to have an entirely Republican nine-member delegation. The state House approved the plan Dec. 5, but state Senate Republicans are divided and expected to kill the proposal.
“Our voices are being drowned out by other states that exploit the redistricting process for their own leftist gains,” state Attorney General Todd Rokita said. “No more bringing a knife to a gunfight.”
Trump has called lawmakers and Vice President JD Vance visited the state. Lawmakers who oppose redistricting have faced at least a dozen death threats, bomb threats and fake emergency calls.
Julia Vaughn, executive director of Common Cause Indiana, which is lobbying against redistricting, told USA TODAY the debate was the most intense political battle she’s seen in 40 years working in the statehouse.
“That kind of hard-ball stuff just doesn’t work there in Indiana,” Vaughn said. “I’m not saying people aren’t scared. You can kind of read the fear on people’s faces. The threats are real, they’re having an impact but I think they’re backfiring.”
Indiana’s legislature wouldn’t be in special session in December if not for the action Texas took, Vaughn said.
“Certainly what’s gone on in other states has triggered this,” Vaughn said. “We wouldn’t be in this position if Texas hadn’t kicked this all off. It is just a shame that this is all caused by outsiders.”
‘Big money’: study finds records costs of 2025 elections
The redistricting comes at a time of record spending on 2025 elections, according to study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
New Jersey’s gubernatorial race was the most expensive in history and likely to exceed $200 million, outpacing the previous high-water mark of $144 million, according to the study by Ian Vandewalker. Virginia’s $102 million gubernatorial race was the second-most expensive in state history.
California’s ballot measure to allow redistricting cost nearly $140 million, for the seventh most expensive in state history. Pennsylvania held elections on whether to give 10-year terms to three of seven state Supreme Court justices, with spending on the contests topping $15 million, compared to the previous record of $1.5 million.
“It’s a sign that the costs of elections continue to rise even in state and local races, fueled by big money from all over the country and a sense of high stakes even for offices not typically thought of as nationally significant,” Vandewalker wrote.
Other Supreme Court cases could affect the 2026 midterms
Other potential court changes are afoot for how elections are handled.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in October about a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which aims to prevent congressional maps from diluting the votes of minorities by packing them into one district or spreading them out among too many districts.
A decision is expected by June. Hasen, the election-law professor, said more redistricting could be approved even closer to the election if the high court “waters down or kills” the section of law.
The justices have also agreed to hear two other election cases dealing with deadlines for counting ballots and limits on campaign contributions.
The Republican Party opposes counting mailed ballots after Election Day, even if they are postmarked by then. The party successfully challenged Mississippi’s law allowing postmarked ballots to arrive within five business days after Election Day and still be counted.
Sixteen states allow such grace periods for all voters, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which high court’s eventual ruling could upend.
Another case deals with a 2001 decision that limits how much political parties can spend on advertising and other messaging in coordination with a federal candidate.
Republicans including Vance are challenging the ruling that the Trump administration says it can’t defend. But Democrats contend limits should remain in place to prevent corruption. The case comes amid record spending on campaigns in recent elections.
