The state of Texas in the southern state of Texas may use a contentious map of congressional districts to support Republicans in the midterm elections of 2026.
The court’s six conservative justices gave the new map the go-ahead, and the three liberal justices joined in dissenting. The court’s decision on Thursday was ideologically divided.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
A lower court’s decision removes a November order that had forbade Texas from using the new congressional map. In violation of the US Constitution, the lower court determined that Texas had “racially gerrymandered” the districts.
However, Texas urged urgent action to lift the hold and submitted an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
After all, it was claimed that candidates need to understand their constituents’ preferences before beginning their campaigns for the midterm elections in November 2026.
The conservative majority determined that Texas was likely to prevail “on the merits of its claims” in a brief, unsigned order.
Additionally, it cited court precedent that “lower courts should typically not change the election rules on the eve of an election.” According to the order, doing otherwise would “inflict irreparable harm” on the state.
Prior to the crucial midterm elections, a nationwide scramble has been sparked by the map’s alleged map.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday is likely to spur even more political-party-friendly redrawing attempts.
a trend that runs throughout the country
The conflict started in June when it became known that President Donald Trump was urging Texas state legislators to adopt a new congressional map, which would allow Republicans to reclaim five of their seats in the US House of Representatives.
Given its large population, Texas is regarded as one of the nation’s largest Republican strongholds. The state currently holds 38 seats in the House, 25 of which Republicans hold.
However, only 220 of the 435 seats in the House are currently held by Republicans.
In the midterm elections in every congressional district, which will feature a new election in 2026, Democrats are attempting to win the chamber. Trump’s declining poll results offer an opportunity for growth, according to strategists on the left.
The Republican president’s approval rating, according to Gallup, dropped five points to 36 percent just this week, marking his lowest rating since his second term.
However, Trump and his supporters have reacted. Promoting partisan redistricting, a practice known as gerrymandering, has been one of their tactics.
The Texas effort was the start of the trend. Democrats had attempted to stop the process after being outnumbered in the state legislature, even attempting to leave the state entirely.
But they were ultimately forced to turn around. Additionally, the new districts were approved by Texas’ Republican-controlled state legislature in August.
Republicans and Democrats in other states were trying to redraw their maps to compete for more congressional seats, which led to a sort of redistricting arms race across the nation.
Republicans in Missouri passed a new gerrymandered map in September, and North Carolina did the same in October. Republicans are anticipated to each win one more House seat per state.
The state’s independent election commission would be replaced with a new partisan map after California voters approved a ballot initiative supported by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom in November.
The new California map is intended to help Democrats clinch exactly five more House seats, making that effort explicit to neutralize any gains made by Texas Republicans.
A legal complication
Voting rights advocates have long expressed concern about how partisan redistricting affects minority communities in the US.
However, gerrymandering is not a crime at all.
States typically elect new congressional districts once every ten years in response to demographic trends in the US census. After all, each state’s representative population is a function of its overall population, so districts must evolve accordingly as the population grows or shrinks.
The legislature is often tasked with creating those new congressional maps, and the results are frequently partisan.
The Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot determine whether legislatures have erected their maps in an excessive manner despite acknowledging that partisan gerrymandering can threaten democracy.
However, there is one rule prohibiting racial discrimination. Both the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the US Constitution provide protections to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised and divided based on race.
The Supreme Court entered into the case on Thursday, Greg Abbott v. the League of United Latin American Citizens.
The US District Court for Western Texas sided with plaintiffs who claimed the state’s new map was intended to erode the electoral power of Black and Latino voters.
The court made reference to statements made by Texas governor Greg Abbott and members of the Trump administration that appeared to be aimed at congressional districts with non-white majority.
However, the district court “feamed to respect the presumption of legislative good faith,” according to the Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday. Additionally, it referred to the lower court’s decision as “ambiguous” and “circumstantial evidence” ().
Justice Samuel Alito, a right-winger, went further, arguing that it was challenging to distinguish between racial discrimination and legal gerrymandering.
Aufgrund of the association between race and racial preference, Alito wrote, “License can easily use allegations of racial gerrymandering for partisan goals.”
If the new Texas map was simply a race-based idea, Alito claimed that the plaintiffs had to demonstrate how a partisan map would differ from a race-based map.
Midterms race
Republican politicians praised the ruling on Thursday as proof of their efforts.
“We won! Governor Abbott wrote on his social media account that Texas is “officially” and legally “more red.”
The Texas congressional redistricting maps that add five more Republican seats have been restored by the Supreme Court. Our representation in D.C. and the values of Texas are more accurately aligned by the new maps.
Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised his efforts to defend the Republican Party’s platform.
In a statement posted online, he said, “I have defended Texas’ fundamental right to draw a map that ensures we are represented by Republicans in the face of Democrats’ attempts to abuse the judicial system to steal the U.S. House.”
“Texas is paving the way, district by district, state by state,” says Texas.
Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether the Supreme Court’s members had given the evidence a thorough analysis in a stinging dissention.
She compared the high court’s quick decision to the lower court’s one.
“The District Court held a nine-day hearing, which included the introduction of thousands of exhibits and witness testimony. It analyzed the 3, 000-page factual record that came out as a result,” Kagan wrote.
“And it determined that the answer was clear after reviewing all the evidence. In violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution, Texas largely divided its citizens according to racial lines when it created its new pro-Republican House map.
Kagan remarked that the district court’s lengthy 160-page decision also provided an explanation of its reasoning.
Kagan rebutted that decision on the grounds that it was based on a cold paper record that was perused over the weekend. “We are a higher court than the District Court, but we are not a better court when it comes to making such a fact-based decision.”
The plaintiffs in Thursday’s case and other advocates have pledged to fight Texas’s redistricting efforts despite the legal setback.
After Thursday’s ruling, Texas state representative James Talarico, a Democrat, stated in a statement that “voters are supposed to choose their politicians — not the other way around.”
We’re going to continue fighting, Donald Trump and his hand-picked Supreme Court say.
