Supreme Court Approves Texas GOP-Favored Map for 2026 Elections:

The United States Supreme Court has allowed the state of Texas to move forward with a controversial new congressional map that is expected to help Republicans gain additional seats in the 2026 midterm elections. The ruling came on Thursday and followed a clear ideological divide: all six conservative justices supported the map, while the three liberal justices dissented. The decision lifts a lower court order issued in November that had blocked Texas from using the map. That court had found that Texas lawmakers had drawn the districts in a way that discriminated against Black and Latino voters—something the U.S. Constitution does not allow. Texas quickly appealed, telling the Supreme Court that campaigns for the 2026 midterms are already under way and that candidates need to know which districts they will represent. In an unsigned order, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said Texas was likely to win the case in the end. The justices also pointed to past court decisions saying that lower courts should avoid changing election rules too close to an election. Doing so, they argued, could create confusion and harm the state’s election process. The Texas map has fueled a nationwide wave of redistricting battles as both Republicans and Democrats try to redraw congressional districts to benefit their parties. The controversy began in June after reports surfaced that President Donald Trump had urged Texas lawmakers to create a new map designed to help Republicans win up to five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Texas, a longstanding Republican stronghold, currently holds 38 House seats, with 25 of them controlled by Republicans. But because the party’s national majority is slim—only 220 out of 435 seats—both parties see the 2026 elections as crucial. Democrats hope to take advantage of Trump’s falling approval ratings, which recently dropped to 36 percent according to Gallup—the lowest of his second term. The Republican strategy has included aggressively pushing for partisan redistricting, often called gerrymandering. Democratic lawmakers in Texas attempted to block the new map by leaving the state to prevent a vote, but they were eventually forced to return. The Republican-led legislature passed the map in August. Since then, other states have joined the redistricting race. Republicans in Missouri and North Carolina approved new maps expected to give the GOP one extra House seat in each state. Meanwhile, California voters passed a Democratic-backed initiative in November to replace the state’s independent redistricting commission with a partisan map aimed at giving Democrats five more seats—matching the expected GOP advantage from Texas. Gerrymandering has long been controversial in the U.S., especially when it affects minority communities. While the Supreme Court has said that partisan gerrymandering is a political issue that federal courts cannot judge, it has made one thing clear: gerrymandering based on race is illegal. That is why the case Greg Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens reached the Supreme Court. A federal district court had previously ruled that Texas lawmakers intentionally weakened the voting power of minority communities. But the Supreme Court disagreed, saying the lower court did not give enough weight to the assumption that lawmakers acted in “good faith.” Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately, saying it can be difficult to separate racial motives from political ones because race and party preference often overlap. He argued that plaintiffs must show that a purely partisan map would look different from the one Texas produced. Texas Republicans celebrated the ruling. Governor Greg Abbott said the decision legally makes Texas “more red,” while Attorney General Ken Paxton said he had protected the state from what he called Democratic attempts to “steal” the House. In a strong dissent, Justice Elena Kagan criticized the Supreme Court for acting too quickly. She noted that the lower court held a nine-day hearing, examined thousands of pages of evidence, and produced a detailed 160-page ruling—while the Supreme Court reversed it with only a brief order. Despite the setback, voting rights groups say they will continue their fight. Texas Democratic Representative James Talarico said that voters, not politicians, should choose their leaders. Legal battles are also continuing in California, where the Trump administration is challenging that state’s new partisan map.

NEWS