California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom departs after speaking about the Election Rigging Response Act at a news conference earlier this month in Los Angeles. California Democrats promised to retaliate if Texas gerrymanders its congressional map, and approved a new map that will go before voters in November. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

When California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his plan to retaliate if Republican-led Texas redrew its congressional districts to favor the GOP, he affirmed his support for less partisan maps — and then promised to “meet fire with fire.”

“We’re doing it mindful that we want to model better behavior,” Newsom told reporters in Los Angeles earlier this month, nodding to the independent system his state currently uses to draw districts. “ … But we cannot unilaterally disarm. We can’t stand back and watch this democracy disappear.”

President Donald Trump’s call for Republicans to redraw U.S. House districts so the party can win more seats in the 2026 midterm elections — to gerrymander them — has triggered a redistricting frenzy this summer that also threatens to prompt moves by Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and New York, among others. Ohio was already set to redraw its lines, even before the current fracas.

The battle for partisan advantage is placing Democratic politicians, advocates of less partisan maps and others who support curbs on gerrymandering in an uncomfortable position, pitting their desire for change against fears that Trump will take advantage of their scruples to wring more GOP seats out of a handful of key states. Some say they accept that Democratic states need to respond, while others warn retaliation will only yield short-term gains.

The Texas House passed a new map on Wednesday, clearing the way for a final vote in the state Senate and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s signature. In California, lawmakers passed their own map on Thursday, setting up a statewide vote in November over the new districts.

Other states are now likely to follow, as Republicans and Democrats scramble for a political leg up.

But gerrymandering opponents say the current moment has the potential to produce new energy for their movement. More people are paying attention to gerrymandering, they say, and new polls show the public opposes the practice. The rush to redraw maps demonstrates the need for Congress to set national limits, they say.

“I think that the gerrymandering wildfire that we’re seeing across the country right now calls real attention to the urgent need for a national standard,” said David Daley, an author of books on gerrymandering and a senior fellow at FairVote, a Maryland-based nonpartisan group that supports ranked choice voting and multimember House districts to end the practice. “We will never have reform if a handful of states can act on their own.”

At the same time, some gerrymandering opponents fear states will unravel hard-fought victories. They wonder whether temporary measures, such as California potentially setting aside the independent commission it uses to redraw maps, could become permanent.

‘An unprecedented time’

State legislatures exercise primary control over congressional redistricting in 39 states, according to All About Redistricting, a compendium of information on map-drawing hosted by Loyola Law School in California. While some states use other methods, only nine states rely on independent commissions, which typically limit participation by elected officials and are favored by many gerrymandering opponents.

Most states draw maps once a decade after the census, making the mid-decade maneuvers and counter-maneuvers highly unusual (six states currently have only one representative, eliminating the need to draw district lines). But just a few seats could determine who controls the U.S. House. Republicans currently hold 219 seats to Democrats’ 212, with four vacancies.

“We affirm that gerrymandering, both racial and political, disenfranchises voters,” Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, an organization that has long advocated for changes to the redistricting process, said during a press call the day before Newsom’s announcement.

“But this is an unprecedented time of political upheaval,” she said. People don’t want to see a situation develop where maps are redrawn every two years, she added.

The new Texas map could ease the path for Republicans to win an additional five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Texas lawmakers rapidly advanced the redraw this week once Democratic state lawmakers returned to the state. They had traveled to other states to deny Texas House leaders the quorum required to approve the map, but returned after Newsom outlined California’s response.

Gerrymandering typically involves “packing” and “cracking.” “Packing” refers to the concentration of opposition party voters in a small number of districts to reduce competition elsewhere. “Cracking” means diluting the voting power of the opposing party’s supporters across many districts.

Texas Republicans have been frank that they are pursuing the redraw for partisan advantage. But they emphasize that no prohibition exists, in Texas or nationally, against mid-decade redistricting and that a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision cleared the way for states to draw maps for partisan purposes, removing the power of federal courts to police political gerrymandering.

The new maps give Republicans a chance of winning additional districts but doesn’t guarantee victories, they add.

“The underlying goal of this plan is straightforward: improve Republican political performance,” Texas state Rep. Todd Hunter, a Republican who carried the bill in the Texas House, said during floor debate on Wednesday. He added a short time later: “According to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can use political performance, and that is what we’ve done.”

Tricky terrain

As Texas moves forward and California prepares to respond, Common Cause illustrates the tricky terrain anti-gerrymandering advocates are now navigating.

The group, headquartered in Washington, D.C., fought to enact the California Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2008. But earlier this month, Common Cause declined to condemn California’s retaliation, saying it will judge the effort by whether the maps are a proportional response to gerrymanders in other states, whether the process includes meaningful public participation, and whether the maps expire and are replaced after the 2030 census through the state’s regular redistricting process, among other criteria.

Newsom’s proposal, the Election Rigging Response Act, will ask California voters in November to temporarily set aside the state’s redistricting commission and approve the new map drawn by the legislature. The commission would resume drawing maps following the census.

Recent polling shows widespread public opposition to gerrymandering. A YouGov poll of 1,116 Americans conducted in early August found 69% believe it should be illegal to draw districts in a way that makes it harder for members of a particular political party to elect their preferred candidates. The poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The number of Americans who say gerrymandering is a big problem has jumped in recent years. In the YouGov poll, 75% of respondents said it is a major problem when districts are intentionally drawn to favor one party, up from 66% in a 2022 survey.

Some California Republicans have responded to Newsom’s proposal by defending the commission system. A group of Republicans sued in state court to block the plan, but the California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a request to temporarily halt the effort.

‘Is this bad for reform?’

While members of the public might say they favor citizen-led commissions, they may not care deeply about the issue, said David Hopkins, a political science professor at Boston College who has written on polarization in American politics. He called gerrymandering a “classic process subject” that comes off as “inside baseball” to many people.

“The legislators in states that haven’t adopted commissions clearly don’t feel any particular political pressure to do so,” Hopkins said.

Some Republicans in states weighing a mid-decade gerrymander also discount the risk of a public backlash.

In Missouri, Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe may call a special session this fall to redraw the state’s map in hopes of gaining an additional GOP seat in the U.S. House. James Harris, a Missouri Republican consultant with close ties to GOP officials in the state, said he wasn’t concerned redistricting would create momentum to change the process.

Missouri voters in recent years have approved ballot measures favored by Democrats, including one in 2018 that empowered a nonpartisan demographer to draw state legislative districts, though not congressional districts. But Republicans led a successful campaign to convince voters to repeal the changes two years later.

Harris painted any new potential map as part of a national effort to help Trump — who received 58.5% of the vote in Missouri last November.

“I think the lens is wanting to make sure the president has a majority in Congress so he can actually govern for the last two years versus two years of investigations, gridlock,” Harris said.

Advocates of less partisan maps said lawmakers aren’t likely to surrender their own role in mapmaking. While some state courts may limit redistricting excesses, federal courts stopped policing partisan gerrymandering following the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision. And the high court may soon weaken the judiciary’s power to block race-based gerrymandering.

Samuel Wang, director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, which supports eliminating partisan gerrymandering, said the “one good thing” about the redistricting battle is that it’s prompted voters to pay attention to an arcane and technical issue. That could be a positive in the long run, he said, “if people can keep a cool head.”

Wang has written online that any response to Texas should remain measured and proportionate. California offers Democrats the only clean option to strike back, Wang wrote. Five Democratic seats could be added by redrawing the state.

“Is this bad for reform? I mean, I’m torn,” Wang told Stateline. “Because on the other hand, Democrats have been, over the last few decades, vocal in their advocacy for voting rights in various forms and now that advocacy is in question because they find a need to fight fire with fire.”

“So I guess the way I would characterize it is if they can hold it in check and not do it in every single state and just engage in whatever they’re doing where it will make a difference,” he said, “then we might not lose all the progress that’s been made.”

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

President Donald Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott hold hands during a roundtable event at the Hill Country Youth Event Center in Kerrville, Texas, on July 11, 2025. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s push to bolster the GOP’s narrow congressional majority in next year’s elections has prompted a rare nationwide mid-decade redistricting battle that has rapidly taken shape over the past weeks. 

Indiana GOP lawmakers’ White House visit this week highlights how the race to redraw congressional districts for partisan advantage may soon expand beyond Texas and California — two states that have reached new stages in their dueling redistricting efforts. Missouri could also be on its way to redrawing its map to favor Republicans.

“Drawing districts to put your thumb on the scale is almost as old as the country,” said David Niven, a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati who conducts research on gerrymandering, elections and voting rights.

“The revolutionary twist is: Almost all of the history of gerrymandering has been about personal gain and about advancing your friends’ interests — this is a real dramatic turn toward using gerrymandering for national political control.”

The national scuffle originated with Trump urging Texas to draw a new congressional map to defend the GOP’s razor-thin control of the U.S. House. The map could give Republicans five new congressional seats in the 2026 midterms.

The GOP has 219 U.S. House seats, with Democrats holding 212 spots and four current vacancies — a slim margin that has created hurdles for U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, as he tries to enact Trump’s agenda and cater to both the demands of the president and the GOP conference’s factions. 

As Republicans in the Hoosier State face mounting pressure to join in on the redistricting fight, Indiana GOP state lawmakers are headed to the White House on Tuesday.

The meeting was scheduled before Vice President JD Vance’s Aug. 7 meeting with Indiana GOP leadership as part of the administration’s redistricting push but after redistricting was added to Texas’ special legislative session agenda in July, according to the Indiana Capital Chronicle. 

As of last week, Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Braun remained noncommittal about whether he would call a special session to redraw the state’s lines, per the Capital Chronicle. 

California, Texas redistricting battle heats up 

The Indiana lawmakers’ visit to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. comes as Lone Star State Republicans inch closer to adopting a new congressional map and California Democrats fight back with their own effort. 

The Texas Senate on Saturday approved the new map, which Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he would “swiftly” sign into law.

Texas lawmakers approved the new congressional map after two weeks of delays following widespread opposition from Texas’ Democratic legislators. 

But the Golden State is ramping up its retaliatory efforts against Texas Republicans.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a legislative package Aug. 21 that calls for a special election, in which voters will decide the fate of a new congressional map that could give Democrats five more seats in the U.S. House. 

Newsom has framed the effort as pushing back against political hardball by Trump. 

“We got here because the president of the United States is struggling,” Newsom said shortly before signing the legislative package. 

“We got here because the president of the United States is one of the most unpopular presidents in U.S. history. We got here because he recognizes that he will lose the election. Congress will go back into the hands of the Democratic Party next November. We got here because of his failed policies,” he said. 

The California governor added that Texas “fired the first shot.”

“We wouldn’t be here if Texas had not done what they just did, Donald Trump didn’t do what he just did.” 

Meanwhile, Trump said Monday that the Department of Justice will file a lawsuit over Newsom’s redistricting efforts.

More states could follow 

Missouri could also soon follow in Texas’ redistricting footsteps to give the GOP more of an advantage in the upcoming midterms. 

Trump took to social media Aug. 21 saying “the Great State of Missouri is now IN,” adding that “we’re going to win the Midterms in Missouri again, bigger and better than ever before!”

The administration has put pressure on Missouri in recent weeks to redraw their lines to help defend Republicans’ majority in the U.S. House by eliminating one of two Democratic districts in the state.

Though Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe said no decisions about calling a special legislative session had been made, a spokesperson for the Republican said he “continues to have conversations with House and Senate leadership to assess options for a special session that would allow the General Assembly to provide congressional districts that best represent Missourians,” according to the Missouri Independent.

Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore said Sunday he is considering redistricting efforts in the state, where the GOP currently holds just one of eight congressional seats. 

“I want to make sure that we have fair lines and fair seats, where we don’t have situations where politicians are choosing voters, but that voters actually have a chance to choose their elected officials,” Moore told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” 

“We need to be able to have fair maps, and we also need to make sure that if the president of the United States is putting his finger on the scale to try to manipulate elections because he knows that his policies cannot win in a ballot box, then it behooves each and every one of us to be able to keep all options on the table to ensure that the voters’ voices can actually be heard, and we can have maps.”

Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition signs on a table outside the Capitol meeting room where the coalition took testimony opposing a Republican redistricting proposal. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

A new lawsuit filed this week in Dane County Circuit Court seeks to have Wisconsin’s congressional maps declared an unconstitutional, anti-competitive gerrymander and thrown out. 

The suit, filed Tuesday, is another attempt by Democrats and their allies to have new maps drawn before the 2026 midterm elections. Just a few weeks ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear two challenges to the current congressional districts. 

Republicans currently hold six of the state’s eight congressional districts. Democrats have focused on southern Wisconsin’s First District, currently held by Rep. Bryan Steil, and western Wisconsin’s Third District, currently held by Rep. Derrick Van Orden, as possible targets. 

The current maps were drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and selected by the state Supreme Court, which was at the time controlled by conservatives. In that case, the Court had ruled that any proposed maps must follow a “least change” standard and adhere as closely as possible to the maps installed by Republicans in 2011. 

The new lawsuit was filed at the local level, rather than directly with the Supreme Court as an original action, a slower process but perhaps more likely to be taken up by the Court — which has declined to hear challenges to the congressional maps a handful of times in the last few years, despite the Court’s liberal wing gaining majority control after the 2023 Supreme Court election. 

The new suit was filed by attorneys from voting rights focused Law Forward on behalf of the bipartisan business group Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy Coalition, arguing that the current maps are unconstitutional because they’re anti-competitive. Previous challenges to the maps argued the districts were rigged to benefit the Republican party and violated equal protection laws. 

“Wisconsin’s current congressional plan presents a textbook example of an anti-competitive gerrymander,” the lawsuit states. “Anti-competitive gerrymanders are every bit as noxious to democracy as partisan gerrymanders and racial gerrymanders.”

The lawsuit adds that Wisconsin’s maps are an “anti-competitive gerrymander that artificially suppresses electoral competition.” The suit argues that when the congressional maps were drawn in 2011, the lines were drawn to protect incumbents of both parties. When those maps were largely kept intact by the Supreme Court’s “least change” standard in 2021, the decision to insulate incumbents was carried over. 

“After the Wisconsin Legislature adopted the 2011 congressional map, congressional races over the ensuing decade were, as intended, highly uncompetitive,” the lawsuit states, noting that only one congressional election under those maps was decided by less than 10 percentage points. “The Court’s adoption … of the ‘least change’ congressional map necessarily perpetuated the essential features — and the primary flaws — of the 2011 congressional map, including the 2011 congressional map’s intentional and effective effort to suppress competition.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin Supreme Court chambers. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued two orders Wednesday, declining to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the state’s congressional maps. 

Democrats had hoped that the liberal wing of the court retaining majority control of the body in this spring’s election would give them an opportunity to change the congressional lines. Republicans currently hold six of the state’s eight congressional seats, and Democrats hoped they could flip the 1st and 3rd CDs under friendlier maps. 

Before Republicans drew new congressional lines in 2010, Democrats controlled five of the state’s seats. The current maps were drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and approved by the state Supreme Court when it was controlled by conservatives. That Court had required that any proposed maps adhere to a “least change” standard that changed as little as possible from the 2010 maps. 

While Evers’ maps made the two competitive districts slightly closer contests, they’re still controlled by Republican U.S. Reps. Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden. 

The two lawsuits were brought by the Elias Law Group representing Democratic candidates and voters and the Campaign Legal Center on behalf of a group of voters. The cases argued the maps violated the state’s constitutional requirement that all voters be treated equally. 

The challenges against the maps drew national attention as Democrats hope to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections. 

This is the second time in as many years that the Supreme Court, under a liberal majority, has declined to hear challenges to the congressional maps. 

In both cases, the Court issued unanimous decisions without any explanation as to why they weren’t accepting the cases. 

Aside from declining to hear the cases, Justice Janet Protasiewicz issued an order denying requests that she recuse herself from the case. Republicans have called for her recusal from redistricting cases because of comments she made during her 2023 campaign about Wisconsin’s need for fairer maps. Previously, after Protasiewicz joined the Court, as part of a new liberal majority, it declared the state’s legislative maps, which locked in disproportionate Republican majorities in the Legislature, unconstitutional. 

“I am confident that I can, in fact and appearance, act in an impartial manner in this case,” she wrote. “And the Due Process Clause does not require my recusal because neither my campaign statements nor contributions to my campaign create a ‘serious risk of actual bias.’”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE