Aug. 20 (UPI) — Texas Republicans are near passing a new congressional map that could spark a redistricting war between Republican and Democrat-led states.
President Donald Trump called on Texas Republicans to add five more seats in U.S. Congress before the 2026 midterms. Democrats in California are preparing to respond with a redistricting plan of their own. More states are discussing joining the fray in retaliatory efforts to make partisan changes to district maps.
Republicans hold a 219 to 212 majority in the U.S. House.
“Trump’s pressure on Texas is likely to set up a redistricting war, where states including California seek to counteract Texas and Trump tries to pressure more states like Missouri to draw more Republican districts,” Richard Hasen, professor of political science and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, told UPI. “It hurts representation when fairer districts are being replaced with noncompetitive districts drawn to give one side maximal advantage.”
Redistricting normally coincides with the release of the decennial census at the end of the decade. It is rare for redistricting to take place mid decade but it is not unheard of. State legislatures will redistrict mid decade due to court cases holding up past plans, sometimes for multiple years.
Texas Republicans’ plan
Texas lawmakers are holding a special session to approve their plan which, in theory, will add five more congressional seats for Republicans. The state senate approved the plan last week in a 19-2 vote along party lines.
Democrats in the state’s House of Representatives left the State Capital earlier this month and refused to return, blocking the legislature from having a quorum and passing the redistricting plan.
The special session was initially called by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in response to the deadly flood in Hill Country, Texas, in July. State legislators were to meet to discuss emergency preparedness measures and releasing emergency funding for the affected communities.
Abbott has called a second special session to finish passing the new map, with a vote slated for Friday. Emergency management related topics are also on the docket for the week, including relief funding.
If passed and signed by Abbott, the redistricting plan reshapes the state’s congressional districts to give Republicans an advantage among voters in five additional districts based on voter turnout in the past two general elections.
Republicans hold 25 of Texas’ 38 congressional seats.
California Gov. Newsom responds
California Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to call a special election to pass a ballot measure in the fall if Texas and Abbott pass their redistricting plan. Redistricting in California could counteract the Republican advantage created by Texas’ new congressional map by swinging five seats for Democrats.
The legislative package to create a new map in California has a trigger provision, meaning the map will only take effect if other states, like Texas, also redistrict. This means a Republican-led state, namely Texas, needs to enact a redrawn congressional map for California’s redrawn map favoring Democrats to become active.
The proposal also circumvents California’s redistricting commission.
California’s state constitution grants the authority to redistrict to a redistricting commission. Voters in California granted this power to the commission by a vote in 2010. Newsom’s proposal would override the commission when the law is triggered.
The bill to authorize this redistricting plan is written to expire in 2030.
Unlike Texas, which can pass a mid-decade redistricting plan purely through legislative action, California must change its state law which requires putting a measure before voters.
“California will not sit idle as Trump and his Republican lapdogs shred our country’s democracy before our very eyes,” Newsom said in a statement. “In just six months, Trump’s unchecked power has cost Americans billions and taken an ax to the greatest democracy we’ve ever known. This moment calls for urgency and action – that is what we are putting before voters this November, a chance to fight back against his anti-American ways.”
More states consider changes
There are murmurs that lawmakers in more states are contemplating redistricting in response to Texas and California, including Missouri, New York, Illinois and Maryland, according to Justin Levitt, constitutional law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.
Illinois and Maryland are like Texas in that they do not need to change their state law to commence redistricting.
“I don’t think we’re done with the states that have currently stepped forward. The push to draw as many partisan lines as you can is not Constitutional,” Levitt told UPI. “None of this is good for democracy.”
Cindy O’Laughlin, Republican Missouri senate president pro tem, posted on social media that legislators are always discussing redrawing district maps but lawmakers will follow the lead of Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe.
“I know the governor will always consider options to make sure our representation in Washington matches our conservative majority here at home,” she posted. “There has been no decision made by the governor (who I just met with) and we will follow his lead of course. He is supportive of Speaker [Mike] Johnson in Washington and the Trump administration.”
Republicans control six of Missouri’s eight congressional seats.
New York has an independent redistricting commission like California. Overriding the commission would require a change to the state’s constitution. This can be done by a legislative amendment being approved across two consecutive legislative sessions, making it impossible to pass before the midterm elections. The amendment would then need to face the voters.
Lawmakers in Ohio are already required to pass new congressional maps ahead of the midterm elections.
In 2018, voters approved Ohio Issue 1, changing the requirements to pass congressional redistricting maps as well as the standards those maps must meet. It requires Republicans and Democrats to come to an agreement on district maps, which they have yet to do.
Lawmakers must pass a map with 60% approval by Sept. 30, with at least half the members of each party approving it. If they do not, the Ohio Redistricting Commission will be charged with redistricting by Oct. 31.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has not ruled out Democrats in his state redrawing their congressional maps in direct response to Texas’ plan.
“Texas has basically declared there are no rules and other states are responding saying, ‘Well yeah, if you’re going to have no rules we’re not going to have any rules,” Levitt said. “It’s a little bit like spinning on the precipice of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If everybody launches, nobody likes the world afterward.”
How voters will respond
Lawmakers in California and Texas are leaning on the results of past elections to determine how effective their new maps will be in generating the results they seek. Levitt said relying on past elections may not predict future results.
“Texas is making some assumptions. The plan that they’ve put forward says that it’s going to swing five seats relying largely on the 2020 or 2024 electorate,” he said. “That may or may not be the electorate that shows up. President Trump’s not going to be on the ballot and if the electorate looks more like 2018, I think the effort is going to be a little less successful.”
The party that does not hold control over the Oval Office tends to fare better in competitive districts during midterm elections, Hasen said. Democrats flipped two Texas seats held by Republicans in 2018 and held another seat in a competitive district.
“The party of the president usually loses seats in the midterm and Trump, at least as of now, has a pretty low approval rating,” Hasen said.
It is no guarantee that voters in California will approve a measure to allow redistricting. It was the voters who passed the creation of the redistricting commission.
Levitt said voters, regardless of party, tend to oppose changes to their elections that they perceive as taking their power away, such as gerrymandering.
“Voters reliably hate it,” Levitt said. “Voters have reliably taken power away from politicians to choose who the voters are, and returned the power to voters to choose who the politicians are.”
Voters in New York rejected an effort to modify its redistricting process in 2021, voting down a measure to change its redistricting commission’s voting process.
Legal recourse
The redistricting map that the Texas legislature passed after the 2020 census remains the subject of a legal battle as plaintiffs challenge it on grounds that it dilutes the political power of people of color.
The case, Fair Maps Texas Action Committee vs. Abbott, alleges that the map denies voters of color the equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates as it was drawn using race as a predominant factor to discriminate against them.
“The problem is the clock,” Levitt said. “Texas has been fighting those claims in court for four years now. For four years they’ve managed to fight to a draw in court just by stalling.”
Legal intervention has long been the way to challenge partisan gerrymanders that further quiet marginalized voices. However, a 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court casts a shadow over the redistricting battle that is bubbling in Texas, California and other states.
In its majority opinion in the case Rucho vs. Common Cause, the high court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims “present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.”
“The framers were aware of electoral districing problems and considered what to do about them,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “They settled on a characteristic approach, assigning the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the federal Congress. At no point was there a suggestion that the federal courts had a role to play.”
The Supreme Court also weakened legal counters to discriminatory gerrymandering efforts in the 2013 case Shelby County vs. Holder. In that case, the court struck down a formula used under the Voting Rights Act to determine which states and jurisdictions must seek preclearance from the Justice Department to change election laws and voting maps.
Sixteen states were subject to preclearance due to their histories of racially discriminatory voting practices. Texas and many other southern states were among those required to seek preclearance. Some jurisdictions in California and New York were also subject to preclearance requirements.
Due to these Supreme Court decisions, Levitt is doubtful lawsuits will be effective in stopping redistricting plans from moving forward.
“The Supreme Court doing away with the most effective medicine for those problems means that, purely based on timing, it’s going to be awfully tough for a plaintiff, even with a good case, to get relief before the ’26 elections,” he said.