A fast-moving fight over congressional district lines is unfolding well before the next census. Republicans in Texas and Missouri have advanced new maps designed to add GOP seats, while California Democrats have put a rival plan before voters to tilt several districts blue. At the same time, courts in Utah and Louisiana are weighing rulings that could reshape the legal landscape for years. With control of the U.S. House likely to hinge on only a handful of seats in 2026, the outcome of these redistricting battles could decide who runs Congress.

Texas set off the current round when lawmakers, urged on by President Donald Trump, approved a new congressional map that could net the GOP as many as five additional seats. Gov. Greg Abbott has said he will sign the plan, which would take effect for 2026 unless courts intervene. Lawsuits are expected to argue that the changes dilute minority voting strength or violate state law.

California responded with a different approach: asking voters to approve “Proposition 50,” a November 4 special-election measure that would suspend the state’s independent commission map and temporarily adopt a Legislature-drawn plan until after the 2030 census. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says a “yes” vote would put the new lines in place for 2026; opponents have sued to block the measure as an unconstitutional power grab.

Missouri has now joined the fray. The state House passed a Trump-backed mid-decade redraw widely expected to target Kansas City-area Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s district and create a likely 7–1 Republican delegation. The Senate is poised to act, and litigation has already begun over the special session itself.

Courts remain central elsewhere. In Utah, a state judge ordered lawmakers to redraw their map on an expedited schedule after finding the Legislature unlawfully sidelined voter-approved redistricting standards; the Utah Supreme Court has granted expedited review of lawmakers’ bid to pause that order.

Louisiana is before the U.S. Supreme Court again. After the Court’s 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan preserved Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and led Alabama to add a second Black-opportunity district, the justices have agreed to rehear the Louisiana dispute this Term. The state now argues that drawing a VRA-compliant, majority-Black district is itself unconstitutional—a claim that could narrow how Section 2 is applied nationwide.

Other battlegrounds are moving on parallel tracks. Ohio’s current congressional map expires after four years; state law requires a new plan by year’s end, and both parties are preparing for another bruising fight. North Carolina is defending its 2024 maps in federal court against racial-dilution claims that could force changes before 2026. Georgia’s remedial maps, drawn after a federal judge found VRA violations, are on appeal, with challengers arguing the state did not fully fix illegal vote dilution. Florida’s high court, by contrast, upheld Gov. Ron DeSantis’s map last month, leaving in place lines that dismantled a prior North Florida district where Black voters could elect their preferred candidate.

Some states are weighing whether to jump in. Reporting indicates Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Maryland, and Illinois are exploring mid-cycle action, although concrete steps vary by state. In Maryland, a Democratic senator has filed a bill to redraw districts; in Nebraska, GOP officials and lawmakers have openly discussed the possibility. Illinois leaders have floated ideas, but may have limited room to squeeze out an additional seat. New York Democrats are debating a constitutional amendment that would permit a mid-decade response while still barring partisan gerrymanders.

Two Supreme Court decisions define the legal ground floor. In 2019, Rucho v. Common Cause held that federal courts may not police partisan gerrymandering, pushing many fights into state courts or into claims alleging racial discrimination. In 2024, the Court’s ruling in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP raised the evidentiary bar for proving a racial gerrymander, making it harder for plaintiffs to show that race and not politics predominated in map-drawing. Together, those cases help explain why many current suits proceed under state constitutions or the VRA rather than as federal partisan-gerrymander claims.

The reach of the VRA itself is also in flux across seven states in the Eighth Circuit. That court has issued rulings restricting who can sue under the Act, though the Supreme Court in July temporarily paused one such decision while appeals continue. If limits on private enforcement stand, fewer plaintiffs could bring voting-rights challenges in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Why it matters is straightforward. Lines decide power. Analysts estimate the number of truly competitive House seats has declined sharply in recent decades; even marginal shifts in a handful of states could determine which party holds the gavel in 2026. Texas and California alone are contemplating changes that, if fully implemented, could swing as many as ten seats combined. Court-ordered redraws in Utah and potential changes in Ohio, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Georgia add further volatility.

What to watch next are concrete dates. California voters will decide Proposition 50 on November 4. Missouri’s Senate could finalize its map within days. The Supreme Court’s Louisiana arguments are expected in the fall. Utah faces an accelerated redrawing timeline subject to state-court review. Ohio’s redistricting deadline arrives by year’s end. Each decision will test how far states can go under their own constitutions and the remaining guardrails of federal law.