A federal court in El Paso has halted Texas from using its newly drawn congressional map for the 2026 midterm elections, concluding that the Legislature’s mid-decade redistricting effort relied on unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The ruling arrived Tuesday after weeks of uncertainty among candidates and political observers, coinciding with the opening of the state’s candidate filing period for the 2026 cycle.
The three-judge panel determined that the map, enacted this summer with the goal of expanding Republican representation by five seats, was shaped by racial considerations that exceeded what federal law allows. The court ordered the state to revert to the congressional map approved in 2021 for the upcoming election cycle.
The decision represents a major setback for state Republican leaders who had justified the redraw as a lawful attempt to solidify conservative voting patterns in Texas’ fast-growing metropolitan and suburban regions. Democratic-aligned groups, which have been challenging both the 2021 map and the new map adopted in 2025, framed the ruling as a crucial defense of voting rights and an important check on what they described as partisan overreach.
The redistricting plan emerged from a tumultuous special legislative session in late August, marked by a two-week quorum break by House Democrats seeking to slow or block passage of the map. Pressure from national political leaders—including President Donald Trump—pushed the Legislature toward an unusual mid-decade redraw, an option typically avoided by states unless compelled by population shifts or court orders. Republican strategists viewed the effort as an opportunity to offset anticipated gains by Democrats in other states and to strengthen the GOP’s prospects for maintaining control of the U.S. House.
The final version of the new map proposed five additional Republican-leaning districts, each drawn to have been comfortably carried by Trump in the previous national election. However, broader analyses of aggregated statewide election results suggested varying levels of partisan reliability. Projected new districts ranged from solid Republican territory to slightly Democratic-leaning, with one district scoring D-53% and others registering Republican advantages from R-52% to R-60%.
Texas’ decision to redraw its map helped catalyze redistricting discussions in other states, especially in Democratic-controlled California. There, state leaders pursued their own mid-cycle map changes to counterbalance Texas’ anticipated gains; California voters approved that approach in a ballot measure earlier this month. The political interplay between the nation’s two largest states underscored the high-stakes national environment surrounding congressional redistricting ahead of 2026.
At the center of the court’s ruling was what judges repeatedly referenced as the “DOJ letter,” sent in July by the U.S. Department of Justice to Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton. The letter urged Texas to redraw its maps in response to the 2024 Petteway v. Galveston ruling, which removed long-standing protections for coalition districts—districts in which multiple minority groups together constitute a majority.
The court found that the DOJ communication, though framed as a warning about potential federal legal exposure, played a significant role in shaping the Legislature’s approach. Judges determined that the state’s reliance on the letter introduced explicit racial considerations into the process, complicating the state’s subsequent attempts to defend the map on purely political grounds. Under Rucho v. Common Cause, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political gerrymandering claims fall outside the purview of federal courts, but that protection does not extend to gerrymanders driven by racial criteria.
Evidence presented at trial indicated internal disagreements within the state government about how to handle the DOJ directive. The attorney general’s office appeared to attempt to steer lawmakers away from explicit racial targets and toward traditional districting considerations such as partisanship and geographic continuity. The governor’s office, however, publicly cited the Petteway ruling as justification for adjusting the racial composition of multiple districts, particularly regarding the elimination of coalition districts and the creation or expansion of majority-Hispanic seats. The court found that these statements and the Legislature’s subsequent actions undercut the credibility of Texas’ claim that the redraw was motivated solely by partisan goals.
The ruling highlighted the inherent legal tension facing states when drawing legislative districts. While the Voting Rights Act still requires limited consideration of racial demographics to protect minority representation, explicit reliance on racial classification can render a map constitutionally suspect. Texas, the court noted, struggled to balance those conflicting obligations while simultaneously pursuing political objectives.
The legal challenge now heads toward an almost certain appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court is already weighing a separate Louisiana case that could further reshape the legal landscape for Voting Rights Act enforcement, particularly regarding majority-minority districts. Texas officials have expressed confidence that the nation’s highest court will ultimately uphold the state’s authority to engage in partisan redistricting without federal interference.
The immediate impact of the ruling is likely to generate political ripple effects across Texas. Candidates who had announced campaigns based on the new 2025 map may need to reassess their plans if the 2021 lines remain in place through the election cycle. Several incumbents and challengers had anticipated running in newly drawn districts with substantially different demographic and partisan profiles.
Meanwhile, national political strategists are watching closely, aware that the control of the U.S. House in 2026 may hinge on just a handful of seats. Texas, with its rapid population growth and shifting partisan dynamics, continues to play an outsized role in determining the balance of power in Washington.
The case also highlights the enduring complexities of redistricting in a state with significant regional diversity and large minority populations. While population growth has been especially strong in Hispanic and Asian American communities, partisan control of the redistricting process has allowed Republican lawmakers to prioritize electoral stability and political strategy. Courts have frequently been called upon to evaluate whether those efforts comply with constitutional and statutory requirements.
As Texas prepares its appeal, candidates, political parties, and advocacy organizations now face a condensed timeline to adapt to whichever map ultimately governs the 2026 elections. The intersecting legal and political pressures ensure that the state’s redistricting debate will remain a central storyline in the run-up to the midterms, with outcomes that may influence national politics far beyond Texas’ borders.
%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).png)
