April 18, 2026 - For much of American history, redistricting was left largely to the discretion of state lawmakers. That changed in the 1960s, when the U.S. Supreme Court entered the political thicket and began developing modern redistricting doctrine. In Baker v. Carr (1962), the Court held that federal courts could hear constitutional challenges to state legislative malapportionment.

April 29, 2026 - The cases included on this page are grouped by decade. Use the links below to learn more about the redistricting cases decided in each of the decades listed: 2020s: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Moore v. Harper, Merrill v.

Since the 2000 census, there has been renewed mid-decade congressional redistricting activity by states. One widely known example of mid-decade redistricting occurred in Texas in 2003, when the state legislature redrew initial congressional boundaries that were adopted by a federal court in 2001.

May 19, 2026 - Like many other states in the American ... of 1965, federal judges and the United States Supreme Court have struck down Texas's congressional and legislative districts on multiple occasions, including in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s...

Republican Gary Franks, elected in an overwhelmingly White district, strongly opposed majority-minority redistricting. He argued that majority-minority districts were unjust because they gave “some Americans a manufactured advantage over other Americans.” Franks, while still a member of the CBC, angered his CBC colleagues when he testified in federal court against a Georgia-based majority-minority district.

2 days ago - In January 2025, Democrats introduced a constitutional amendment (HJR 1001) to establish an independent redistricting commission, however this amendment died in committee. Earlier in 2023, Democrats filed a lawsuit against Arkansas' 4-0 Republican ...

An overview of significant Supreme Court decisions on redistricting from the last five decades. The cases are grouped into four categories: population, a case relating to using a redistricting commission, cases relating to race and cases relating to partisanship.

May 8, 2026 - The court said Democratic lawmakers had violated the state constitution when placing the proposal on the ballot. Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else. Legislative voting districts typically are redrawn based on census data after the start of each decade. But an unusual spate of mid-decade redistricting broke out after President Donald Trump urged Texas Republicans last year to reshape U.S.

March 23, 2017 - While racial gerrymandering claims have been a recent focus of litigation, the Supreme Court is also currently considering an appeal of a case involving partisan gerrymandering. In February 2017, a state appealed a three-judge federal district court ruling that invalidated a redistricting map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

May 4, 2026 - By narrowing how courts can require those districts, the decision could give Republican-controlled states more flexibility to redraw maps in ways that were previously harder to justify under federal law, with analysts warning it could ultimately affect a number of Democratic-held seats over time. In response, several Southern governors have already urged state legislatures to begin reviewing their maps, with Louisiana among those expected to revisit the issue.

April 29, 2026 - The decision has ramifications for redistricting, particularly in Southern states, where rampant discrimination against Black voters led to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s.

The Brennan Center tracks and analyzes ongoing litigation about redistricting. ... When congressional and legislative maps are redrawn each decade, they often are manipulated to discriminate against communities of color or for partisan gain. Courts, both state and federal, play an important role in keeping these practices in check.

3 weeks ago - “While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election,” the unsigned decision concluded, “States are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests.” · Such sentiment, ...

1 week ago - This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

February 13, 2026 - On appeal, the Supreme Court granted Texas’s request to stay the lower court’s injunction, permitting the 2025 map to be used for the 2026 midterms while the case proceeds. The Texas map, backed by the power and prestige of the White House, is seen by critics as Republican gerrymandering to help the party hold on to its narrow House majority. California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded with a Democratic redistricting plan, accusing the president and Republicans of rigging the midterm elections by trying to reshape districts nationwide.

A separate federal court lawsuit, Hodges v. Albritton, No. 8:24-CV-879 (M.D. Fla. 2024) challenges the redrawing of two adjacent state senate districts in the Tampa Bay region, contending that both districts are now unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. On March 31, 2025, a three-judge panel granted summary judgment in favor of the state defendants with respect to one of the challenged districts but denied summary judgment with respect to the other district.

This page provides state laws governing the timing of redistricting, including states that prohibit or allow mid-decade redistricting.

April 29, 2026 - The first of three “preconditions” that courts consider under Gingles is whether there is a group of minority voters that is “sufficiently numerous and compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district.” Alito pointed to the “increased use and capabilities of computers in drawing districts and creating” maps that illustrate redistricting possibilities, and he suggested that plaintiffs challenging a map should be able to provide an alternative map that both “fully achieves all the State’s legitimate goals” and creates a new majority-minority district. Under the second and third “preconditions” under the Gingles test – whether the minority votes as a politically cohesive group and whether the majority group votes as a bloc – the challengers must “provide an analysis that controls for party affiliation. In other words,” Alito said, “they must show that voters engage in racial bloc voting that cannot be explained by partisan affiliation.” Alito cited the development of a

May 18, 2026 - We can help achieve that goal by actively participating in the redistricting process. While the Supreme Court’s decision in Callais sharply limits federal voting rights protections, advocacy and enforcement efforts will continue through legislative action, U.S.

April 15, 2026 - Within the bounds of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, Congress has the authority to amend the federal statutes underlying each of the three pending cases. This Legal Sidebar provides an overview of these three pending election law cases, listed alphabetically by case name, and briefly addresses considerations for Congress. Louisiana v. Callais: Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act