By Mel Wilson, NASW Senior Policy Advisor
A federal court on Nov. 17 rejected a redistricting map submitted by Texas. The Congressional map was a rare mid-cycle redistricting plan completed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott at the urging of the Trump administration. The primary purpose of the redrawn map – as openly stated by the White House – was to gain five additional Republican seats in the House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm election.
It is important to mention that in ruling against the State of Texas, the court’s majority stated that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.” This point was repeated throughout majority’s opinion as a way to drive home their conclusion that race was the central factor in creating new districts – not a coincidence. The court found that the Congressional Map violates both the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.
While many in the voting rights and election protection communities are thrilled with the Texas ruling, they are not naïve to the fact that this decision is not the end of the battle. As expected, Gov. Abbott immediately appealed to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to overturn the lower court’s ruling. In so doing, Abbott strongly stated that race was not a factor in redrawing the Congressional District.
It is not certain when the Supreme Court will review the Texas redistricting case. However, because the mid-term elections are looming, it is anticipated that they will expedite the review. SCOTUS experts suggest that:
(1) The Court will issue a stay or emergency order in a week or two or,
(2) Schedule oral arguments early in 2026, with a decision coming the spring or summer of 2026.
It goes without saying that the lower court’s decision is a victory for fair elections. However, most are well-aware of SCOTUS’s dubious history when it comes to challenges to the Voting Rights Act such as the Texas case. In the recent oral arguments before the Court related to the Louisiana v. Callais case, it was clear that the SCOTUS conservative majority was very skeptical about creating Congressional Districts based on race. Therefore, voting rights advocates are apprehensive about how SCOTUS will rule once it hears the Texas challenge. The one solace is that there are legal experts who feel that during the Louisiana v. Callais arguments, several conservative justices seemed less likely to totally reject the racial gerrymandering reasoning.
In any event, in a political climate where so much is at stake and redistricting battles have increased, a SCOTUS ruling on the Texas redistricting appeal that upholds the lower court ruling will be far more important than a power struggle between the two political parties. There is a near consensus that the outcome of mid-term elections will have historical implications for the future of America’s democracy. By ordering Texas to revert to the 2021 boundaries, SCOTUS will ensure that the upcoming 2026 midterm elections will proceed under maps that are less tainted by racial bias and partisan interference.
Read the NASW Texas Chapter Statement on the Federal Court Ruling
