Redrawing congressional maps in Texas and other states has triggered a wave of lawsuits as both Republicans and Democrats aim to improve their chances ahead of the 2026 elections.
Multiple organizations are suing over Texas’ congressional map, arguing it is unconstitutional and infringes on the Voting Rights Act. They claim the map is designed to secure five additional Republican seats by mid-next year.
Pending legal cases in states like Louisiana and North Dakota could significantly influence the Voting Rights Act and who has the right to file such cases.
Let’s examine the ongoing legal disputes in five selected districts.
Texas
This summer, a few groups initiated lawsuits regarding a new house map approved by Texas legislators.
Among those taking action are the Unified Latin American Citizens’ Federation (LULAC) and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. They previously sued Texas in 2021 over congressional and state legislative boundaries, alleging unconstitutionality.
Recently, additional complaints have been submitted as Texas Republicans sought to advance the new house map, with advocates arguing it undermines the ability of Latinx voters to choose their preferred candidates in several existing Latino districts statewide.
They also contend that this new map violates the 14th Amendment by racially discriminating against Latinx voters.
A federal court has scheduled interim injunction hearings to temporarily block the implementation of the new maps, expected to take place from October 1 to October 10. However, the lawsuits challenging the map’s validity will proceed through the court system afterward.
Louisiana
In a remarkable decision, the Supreme Court agreed to revisit a case about Louisiana’s legislative map in late June. This came after the state was mandated to create a second majority Black House district for the 2024 election cycle.
After the 2020 census, lawmakers produced a map with only one majority Black district. This prompted Governor John Bell Edwards (D) to reject it, arguing that the state’s Black population, constituting about a third of residents, warranted more representation.
Following legal challenges after GOP lawmakers overturned Edwards’ veto, the state was ultimately directed to redraw its maps, reconciling them with a decision regarding Alabama’s legislative boundaries.
A group of non-Black voters then challenged the new map, claiming it violated the 14th Amendment and discriminated based on racial classifications.
The Supreme Court was anticipated to rule on the Pelican map earlier this year but chose to rehear the case, with oral arguments scheduled for October 15.
North Dakota
Recently, several Native American tribes and voters petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting only the Department of Justice can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This is in light of a prior lower court ruling.
Section 2 states that voting eligibility and related procedures shouldn’t disenfranchise citizens based on race or color.
Tribes and voters filed suit against North Dakota’s legislative map, which, after the 2020 census, established just one majority American district, down from three.
While the state was initially ordered to create a new map, a federal appeals court later ruled that individual citizens could not enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, complicating future litigation under this law.
Mississippi
Similarly, Mississippi officials, led by Governor Tate Reeves, are urging the Supreme Court to clarify whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is personally enforceable, as they face a mandate to redraw their legislative maps.
This lawsuit follows claims made by the Mississippi branch of the NAACP and other entities that the current maps violate Section 2 and are unconstitutional.
Last year, the court determined the group hadn’t proven a district map, while also implying the possibility of suing under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remained.
Utah
In Utah, Democrats emerged victorious in establishing an independent committee for redistricting, following a court order for the state to redraw legislative boundaries in accordance with a voter initiative passed in 2018.
Republican lawmakers had previously attempted to invalidate this initiative and formed their own committees to create district maps. However, the court ruled they had acted improperly in dismissing voter-approved initiatives.
Republican leaders have now sought a review from the Utah Supreme Court regarding a judge’s decision demanding the GOP discard their house map by September 15, with instruction to present new maps shortly thereafter.
