Texas and California Face Legal Challenges Over 2026 Redistricting

Last month, we discussed some of the existing court cases and legal questions surrounding partisan and racial gerrymandering. In the last few weeks, redistricting has continued to solidify itself as a major political battleground in the fight to gain or maintain control of the U.S. House and Senate in the 2026 midterm elections. So far, Texas and California have both entered the fray, driven by Governors from opposite sides of the aisle. Additional states that are considering taking action include Democratically controlled Illinois, Maryland, and New York and Republican-held Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio. While these redistricting actions will certainly all be challenged in their respective state courts, current cases in Texas and California demonstrate the range of legal issues that states will encounter in their efforts to alter the political map.

California Redistricting: Legal Challenges and Political Implications

On August 21, 2025, the California legislature passed a legislative package calling for a special election on November 4 for voters to approve a newly-drawn voter district map that creates five new Democratic-leaning districts. This action, ironically, flies in the face of a 2010 decision by California voters to remove partisan politics from the districting process by voting to cede the power to draw congressional maps to an independent commission. Almost immediately following the enactment of the August legislation, a group of Republican lawmakers challenged its validity, asserting that the law did not meet the state constitutional requirement that legislation be publicly available for 30 days before enactment.

California’s “Gut and Amend” Legislative Strategy

This claim stems from the fact that Democrats, eager to fast track the legislation, had used a legislative technique called “gut and amend” to completely transform a pre-existing piece of legislation to avoid the 30 day requirement. Bills that have been subject to the “gut and amend” process only need to be published for 72 hours before lawmakers may vote and such a strategy has often been used by members of both parties to avoid deadlines. On August 20, the Supreme Court of California denied the Republican petition to block the state’s redistricting plan simply stating that the plaintiffs had failed to state a valid claim clearing the way for the measure to appear on the ballot in November.

Ongoing Lawsuits and Constitutional Questions in California

However, Republicans have not given up yet and just last week, two more cases were filed challenging California’s redistricting moves, including one by a Texas lawmaker claiming that the new congressional mapping is retaliatory against Texas’s own efforts and another by a potential California gubernatorial candidate alleging the new map violates equal protections for voters by drawing districts with unequal voting sizes and violets a constitutional prohibition against mid-decade re-districting. 

Texas Redistricting: Racial Gerrymandering and Voting Rights Act Litigation

On August 23, the Texas legislature passed legislation creating a new voter district map designed to add up to five additional Republican House seats to Congress. While Texas’s redistricting process follows a somewhat more simplified process than California and only needs to be approved by the state legislature, it was also challenged by multiple parties in multiple cases. This time, however, the case was filed by residents of the state for unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and violating the Voting Rights Act through voter dilution.

Legal Standards for Racial Gerrymandering in Texas

As referenced in last month’s update, plaintiffs face an uphill climb in their racial gerrymandering argument. According to judicial precedent, in order to succeed, they would have to prove that the intent of the map was to discriminate against minority voters and not to impose partisan benefits, whether or not such benefits cause a disparate impact on minorities.

Voting Rights Act Claims and Potential Impact on 2026 Elections

The plaintiffs, however, may have greater success with their Voting Rights Act claims alleging minority voter dilution as they would only need to prove that the map denies minority voters “an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice” regardless of intent. Notably, whether or not the Democratic claims regarding the voter district map are ultimately successful, if they are able to obtain a temporary injunction during litigation, they may very well be able to stop Texas’s new map from going into effect for the 2026 midterm elections. Texas is one of the first states to hold its 2026 primaries on March 3, 2026, meaning that a final determination on the issue must be reached in the next seven months, a tight deadline by judicial standards. 

Redistricting Across the States: Future Legal Precedents and Election Strategies

States determined to get their redistricting plans approved in time for the midterm election will be acting quickly over the next few months.  Variations in state constitutional guarantees, as well as the unique process by which each state draws voter maps, will all play extremely important roles in the court cases that follow. Just last week, the Missouri NAACP attempted to preemptively block efforts at redistricting before the special session even convened. The forthcoming flurry of judicial activity across the country will result in some of the most consequential legal precedent regarding state and voter election rights, shaping the future of partisan strategies in all future elections. 

Track Legal Activity and Other Policy Activity

Federal and state legal activity can have significant policy and regulatory implications for businesses and organizations. If your organization would like to further track federal and state legal activity, please contact us.