Republicans Poised to Outmaneuver Democrats in Redistricting Fight

Republicans Poised to Outmaneuver Democrats in Redistricting Fight

There’s no question that Republicans set the current round of redistricting in motion. But Democrats have engaged in the practice aggressively for years. And their efforts have arguably boosted the party’s representation in Congress.

As conservative analyst Josh Hammer noted in a recent op-ed, redistricting is “as old as the republic. The ‘gerry’ in ‘gerrymandering’ refers to Elbridge Gerry, who served in the First Congress and eventually as James Madison’s vice president.”

At any rate, pressed by President Donald Trump last summer, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) unveiled a map that could deliver up to five additional congressional seats to the GOP in the upcoming midterms. And last week, after a protracted legal fight, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling, clearing the way for the new map to be used in November.

Incensed by the Texas governor’s efforts to “rig the midterm elections,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) rolled out a map of his own. The redrawn districts are projected to flip five Republican-held House seats to the Democrats — offsetting the gains in Texas. Voters approved the new map last November. It leaves the GOP with control of just four districts in the state — less than 8 percent of the state’s congressional delegation. California may be a deep-blue state, but Trump still won the support of nearly 40% of its voters in 2024.

In the ten months since Greg Abbott and Gavin Newsom set the process in motion, other states have joined the fray. What has followed feels like a game of ping pong, with each party trading moves and redrawing maps in response to the other’s latest play.

Since Democrats have already exhausted their gerrymandering opportunities in most states, they are pursuing increasingly bold strategies to maximize their remaining advantages. Exhibit A: Days before Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D) January inauguration, both chambers of the General Assembly passed a constitutional amendment that would allow the Democrat-controlled legislature to redraw the state’s congressional maps before voters head to the polls this fall. The proposed redraw could hand Democrats four new seats in Congress.

This move was especially egregious because the Commonwealth is divided into 11 congressional districts. Democrats currently hold six of those seats, and the GOP, five. If the Democrats’ redistricting efforts are successful, that balance would be transformed into a 10–1 supermajority. This would all but erase Republican representation in a state that former Vice President Kamala Harris won by only six points in 2024.

As you may recall, this measure was narrowly approved by a statewide referendum in April.

However, the next day, Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled the referendum to be unconstitutional, blocked certification of the results, and refused to pause the ruling during the appeal. This decision set the stage for a legal battle royale, leaving courts to determine the path forward.

As expected, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones (D) filed an immediate appeal. Last week, the Virginia Supreme Court denied his request for an emergency stay of Judge Hurley’s ruling. And there is reason to believe that, after the legal wrangling concludes, Hurley’s decision may stand. This would be a major victory for the GOP.

Not every red state is on board with gerrymandering. In December, Indiana’s Republican-led Senate — despite enjoying a supermajority — rejected calls from the Trump administration and allied groups to redraw the state’s congressional map. The decision likely cost the GOP two additional House seats that could have made a big difference in the midterms. Trump won the state by 20 points in 2024.

Fortunately, other red states are a little more enthusiastic. In September, Missouri adopted a new redistricting map that is projected to give the party one additional House seat. In October, North Carolina followed suit, passing a new map that is expected to put an another seat in the GOP column. Additionally, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) revealed a new map last week that could deliver four more seats to Republicans.

For all the brinkmanship, the redistricting war has so far produced a near stalemate. But that assumes Virginia is able to use its new map in November. Far from a certainty, the early signals lean against Democrats. And that’s because the problem isn’t about the map itself, but real constitutional questions about the process followed by lawmakers in advancing the amendment that authorized it.

Hurley found that the referendum violated several provisions of the state constitution. Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, summed up the specific legal issues involved in the post below.

The "yes" vote has won Va's redistricting referendum — but the legal fight is just beginning. Four Va Constitutional challenges are now teed up:
THREE challenges to the amendment process itself:
1️⃣ First passage was invalid. The amendment was taken up during a special session…

— Ken Cuccinelli II (@KenCuccinelli) April 22, 2026

Moreover, Hurley was especially critical of how the question was presented to voters, calling it “flagrantly misleading.” He took particular issue with its portrayal of the new map as restoring fairness in upcoming elections, stating that this phrasing “did not accurately describe the proposed amendment.”

Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?

Oh that is soooo good it has to be fattening: pic.twitter.com/tQUaMCgiI6

— A is A (@weRessential) April 22, 2026

The Virginia Supreme Court has already ruled against Democrats once, and given what the lower court described as multiple constitutional violations, it could very well do so again. If that happens, the state would be required to use its previous district map in November, forfeiting the chance to gain up to four Democratic seats, and boosting Republicans chances of holding on to the House majority.

Finally, last week’s Supreme Court ruling means Louisiana can’t use its current congressional map because the court found it to be an unconstitutional gerrymander, forcing the state to start over rather than substituting a new, “neutral” map. In practical terms, lawmakers must now redraw district lines under closer legal scrutiny, a process that could reshape which party has the advantage in key seats. The stakes are particularly high because the invalidated map had been drawn under pressure to include an additional majority-Black district, a change widely expected to benefit Democrats. With that map off the table, Republican lawmakers — who control the process — have more room to craft a plan that could be more favorable to the GOP, potentially limiting Democratic gains.

Mary covered the story and summed up the ruling as follows: “In other words, the Voting Rights Act protects everyone’s right to vote. Majority, minority, Republican, Democrat, male, or female. No one gets a preference. Not a single person.”

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s redrawn Congressional map violated the Constitution.

“Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not allow “voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act.”

This ruling may also impact other states with maps that were designed to include majority-black districts.

All told — at least for now — the mid-decade redistricting fight tilts in favor of the Republicans.

Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on LinkedIn.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.