.png)
Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2025 | 2 a.m.
Editor’s note: “Behind the News” is the product of Sun staff assisted by the Sun’s AI lab, which includes a variety of tools such as Anthropic’s Claude, Perplexity AI, Google Gemini and ChatGPT.
Texas Republicans are pushing for an unprecedented middecade redistricting effort aimed at creating up to five additional Republican-leaning congressional seats. This move, actively supported by former President Donald Trump, represents an unusual departure from the typical practice of redistricting only after each decennial census[5][6]. The proposed new map is expected to increase Republican control from the current 66% to approximately 79% of Texas’ U.S. House seats[22][23].
What makes this redistricting particularly controversial is its timing and explicit partisan goals. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has cited Department of Justice warnings about unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered districts as justification, but critics view this as a pretext for further partisan gains[7]. The redistricting aims to “crack” Democratic and minority communities in cities like Austin, Dallas and Houston by splitting them among several districts dominated by rural, Republican-leaning voters[23][24].
The outcome could shift power in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 midterms. That’s not the only ongoing redistricting dispute, and how others play out could make for a major swing in the balance of the federal government.
US redistricting battles
Beyond the Supreme Court’s pending decisions, several significant cases are currently working their way through lower courts:
- Alabama continues to defend its congressional map in Allen v. Milligan after being required to create a second majority-Black district following Supreme Court and district court rulings that the original map violated the Voting Rights Act[27][28].
- Georgia faces ongoing appeals after a federal court mandated a new congressional map to address claims that lawmakers diluted Black voting strength in the Atlanta area[28].
- Louisiana is at the center of the Supreme Court case Callais v. Landry, where both Black voters and non-Black plaintiffs are challenging the legislature’s new map with two majority-Black districts. The Supreme Court’s expanded review could fundamentally alter how the VRA applies to redistricting[28][1][2][7][8][9].
- Wisconsin, a Democrat-led state, in response to Republican redistricting efforts, is considering redrawing its maps to counter Republican efforts in other states[35].
Redistricting in Nevada
Nevada has experienced its own redistricting controversies, though with different outcomes. The Nevada Supreme Court in 2024 struck down a ballot initiative that would have established an independent redistricting commission, ruling that it violated the state constitution by creating a new state body without specifying funding[32][33][34]. An earlier lawsuit, Koenig v. Nevada, challenged the state’s redistricting plans as partisan gerrymanders but was dismissed in 2022[35].
Supreme Court poised for pivotal decisions
The Supreme Court is currently considering pivotal redistricting cases that could have far-reaching implications, especially regarding the Voting Rights Act and protections for minority voters. The court’s conservative majority appears poised to potentially weaken key voting rights protections, particularly involving race and redistricting.
The most significant case involves Louisiana’s congressional map, where the court expanded the scope of a case involving two majority-Black districts created to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The key legal question is whether intentionally creating districts based on race to comply with the law violates the 14th or 15th Amendments. The conservative majority (6-3) appears ready to potentially rule that race-based districting, even to protect minority voters, may be unconstitutional, which could limit protections for minority voters nationwide[1][2][7][8][9].
The court’s conservative justices have shown a tendency to view the Constitution as “colorblind,” questioning whether race-conscious remedies in redistricting are legally permissible. Past rulings have already weakened parts of the Voting Rights Act, notably the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, and these new cases may further restrict the federal government’s ability to enforce protections against racial vote dilution[1][2].
If the court significantly undermines voting rights, it could make it much harder to challenge racially discriminatory maps in the future, potentially leading to more widespread racial gerrymandering. These decisions will shape the landscape of redistricting litigation and minority voting power for years to come[1][2][4].
The court’s ruling on voting rights would likely signal how it might decide in a potential legal battle over Texas’ redistricting plans.
Gerrymandering used to amass political power
Gerrymandering — the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to give one political party an unfair advantage — has become a central battleground in American politics. This manipulation can be accomplished through “cracking” (spreading opposing voters across districts to dilute their influence) or “packing” (concentrating opposing voters in a few districts to reduce their impact elsewhere). Gerrymandering can target not only political parties but also racial or ethnic groups, limiting their political representation and power[1][2][3].
The term originated in 1812 when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry approved a redistricting plan that created a district so oddly shaped it resembled a salamander, coining the term “Gerry-mander”[1][2][4]. This original case set the tone for how manipulating electoral boundaries could be used for political advantage and has profoundly shaped the definition and public perception of gerrymandering ever since[11][12][13].
The legal landscape
The current redistricting battles are taking place against a backdrop of evolving legal precedents that span more than six decades. The foundation for modern redistricting law was established in the 1960s with several landmark Supreme Court decisions.
Foundational cases of the 1960s
Baker v. Carr (1962) marked a turning point in redistricting law by ruling that federal courts could intervene in and decide redistricting cases, establishing the “one person, one vote” doctrine and making states accountable for ensuring fairness in district boundaries[17][13][14]. Two years later, Reynolds v. Sims (1964) extended this principle by ruling that both chambers of state legislatures must be apportioned according to population, requiring states to redraw districts after every census to maintain roughly equal populations and prevent severe malapportionment[17].
These 1960s rulings established that legislative districts must have substantially equal populations and that courts can and will intervene if districts are drawn unfairly. They underpin the requirement for decennial redistricting and provide the legal basis for most modern redistricting lawsuits[18][17].
Evolution through race and partisanship
The legal framework continued to evolve through subsequent decades. Davis v. Bandemer (1986) ruled that partisan gerrymandering could theoretically be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, but failed to set clear standards for determining when it was unlawful[13][14].
The focus shifted toward racial considerations with Miller v. Johnson (1995), where the court found that racial gerrymandering — redistricting with the intent to dilute minority votes — was unconstitutional, moving beyond solely partisan manipulation to racial impacts[13][15]. This was followed by League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006), which held that challenges based on partisan intent were justiciable but provided little guidance, illustrating the ongoing struggle to address gerrymandering’s complexities[13][15].
Modern constraints and opportunities
The 2019 Supreme Court decision in Rucho v. Common Cause fundamentally altered the landscape by closing the door to federal challenges against purely partisan gerrymandering, declaring such questions nonjusticiable and leaving reform to states and Congress[13][15]. This means the court is unlikely to intervene in controversies like Texas’ aggressive GOP redistricting, leaving such battles to state courts or political processes[4].
However, while partisan gerrymandering claims have limited federal recourse, racial gerrymandering remains subject to constitutional challenge under the Voting Rights Act — though the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority may significantly weaken these protections. The struggle in courts to define and police gerrymandering underscores its controversial and persistent role in American democracy, highlighting its undemocratic nature and continuing influence on electoral fairness[16][13][15][1][2].
Implications and future outlook
The approval of Texas’ new district map would have far-reaching consequences beyond the state’s borders. It would diminish voting power for communities of color — who accounted for nearly all of Texas’ recent population growth — while creating more majority-white districts[22][23]. The reduced political competition in these “safe” districts could limit voter choice and accountability.
Nationally, Texas’ actions could serve as a template for other states, potentially leading to greater polarization and more entrenched single-party districts[24][26]. The success or failure of legal challenges to these maps will likely influence redistricting battles for years to come.
As these cases work their way through the courts, they will continue to shape the fundamental question of political representation in America. The outcomes will determine not only which party controls various legislative bodies but also how effectively minority communities can elect candidates of their choice and whether competitive democracy can survive in an era of increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering techniques.
Sources
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-raises-stakes-louisiana-redistricting-case-rcna222580
[2] https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/scotus-could-be-set-to-end-key-protection-for-minority-voters/
[3] https://www.npr.org/2025/07/24/nx-s1-5464116/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-north-dakota-private-right
[4] https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/04/politics/gerrymandering-supreme-court-texas
[5] https://www.democracynow.org/2025/8/1/trumps_texas_gerrymander
[6] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz601p6jv8vo
[7] https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/court-asks-for-new-briefs-in-louisiana-redistricting-case/
[8] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/01/supreme-court-louisiana-redistricting-order-00490390
[9] https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/01/politics/supreme-court-louisiana-redistricting-case-voting-rights-act
[10] https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/11/texas-redistricting-racial-gerrymandering-coalition-districts-trump/
[11] https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/03/politics/texas-democrats-redistricting
[12] https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/texas-democrats-redistricting-quorum-08-04-25
[13] https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2024/07/gerrymandering-the-origin-story/
[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States
[16] https://www.ncsl.org/redistricting-and-census/redistricting-and-the-supreme-court-the-most-significant-cases
[17] https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/nine-redistricting-cases-that-shaped-history/
[18] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained
[19] https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/nine-redistricting-cases-that-shaped-history/
[20] https://www.ncsl.org/redistricting-and-census/redistricting-and-the-supreme-court-the-most-significant-cases
[21] https://www.britannica.com/topic/gerrymandering
[22] https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/texas-house-panel-passes-new-redistricting-map-adds-more-republican-gop-seats/
[23] https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/30/texas-redistricting-congressional-maps-house-republicans/
[24] https://www.kut.org/politics/2025-08-01/austin-tx-congressional-redistricting-republicans-trump
[25] https://apnews.com/article/redistricting-trump-republicans-democrats-texas-california-e53fd3df17fb9677c29cbd155b91c353
[26] https://www.aclu.org/court-cases?issue=gerrymandering
[27] https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/redistricting-cases-that-could-impact-the-2026-midterms/
[28] https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/challengers-argue-georgias-new-maps-still-harm-black-voters
[29] https://www.wpr.org/news/unpacking-wisconsin-supreme-court-rejection-congressional-redistricting-lawsuits
[30] https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/nevada-redistricting-ballot-initiative-challenge/
[31] https://ivn.us/posts/democrat-led-lawsuit-kills-independent-redistricting-initiatives-nevada
[32] https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-supreme-court-strikes-down-independent-redistricting-commission-ballot-questions
[33] http://thearp.org/litigation/koenig-v-nevada/
[34] https://arkansasadvocate.com/2025/06/06/federal-panel-rules-in-favor-of-state-in-arkansas-congressional-redistricting-lawsuit/
[35] https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2025/08/01/democratic-governors-endorse-mid-decade-redistricting-in-response-to-gop-efforts/
English (US) ·