Voters in California and Texas are facing a season of extraordinary electoral uncertainty as federal courts and state officials grapple with the legality and timing of new congressional district maps, raising the stakes for the 2026 midterm elections and leaving candidates and voters alike in limbo.
In Texas, the drama began in earnest on November 18, 2025, when a federal court in El Paso blocked the state’s newly redrawn congressional map from being used in the 2026 elections, declaring it likely constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. According to Houston Public Media, this decision threw a wrench into the plans of Republican state leaders, who had engineered the map to reshape districts across Houston and the state. Texas Governor Greg Abbott responded by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal battle that could determine which map—either the revised 2025 version or the previous map from 2021—will be used in the upcoming election cycle.
This legal uncertainty is not just a matter for politicians and lawyers; it has real consequences for voters, especially in Houston’s 18th Congressional District. The seat, left vacant after the death of U.S. Representative Sylvester Turner in March 2025, is set for a special election runoff on January 31, 2026. But just over a month later, on March 3, voters will return to the polls for the primary elections, where the nominees for the next two-year term will be selected. As Mary Ibarra, a policy and advocacy strategist at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, told Houston Public Media, “I think voters are going to be very confused. And I think our main goal is to try and get as much public education and public information out as possible, so people know where to look to see where they're represented or what's on their ballot.”
The confusion is compounded by the fact that, depending on the Supreme Court’s decision, the races and the electorate for these two elections could differ substantially. Amanda Edwards and Christian Menefee, the two candidates vying in the January runoff, have both said they plan to run in the March primary, regardless of which map is ultimately used. Edwards explained, “A lot of our messaging was geared around trying to clear up confusion that voters were encountering because of the redistricting. And so now, of course, we will have to clear up that confusion in a different way because some people will not realize that the maps have been overturned and gone back to the original state for the 2021 maps. So we'll have to be changing our messaging on that.”
Menefee echoed the sentiment, saying, “We're preparing for any potential outcome, whether that be the current 18th Congressional District or the racist, gerrymandered version of it. What I want is what I think the people across the district want, which is the opportunities to have our communities remain intact and our representation in Congress.”
The legal and administrative scramble is not confined to Texas. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom and state Democrats have advanced a mid-decade redistricting plan of their own, initially pitched as a response to what they saw as partisan gerrymandering in Texas. Newsom, just before signing the bill to call a special election, declared, “We’re responding (to) what occurred in Texas; we’re neutralizing what occurred.” But with the Texas map now on hold and possibly headed for further legal review, some Californians are questioning whether their state should proceed with its own redistricting.
According to The Los Angeles Times, the answer from Newsom’s office is clear: California’s redistricting plan is moving forward, regardless of developments in Texas. That’s because, before the California Legislature passed the bills to call for a special election and put new maps before voters, lawmakers removed language that would have tied California’s action to what happened in Texas or Florida. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas’s spokesperson, Nick Miller, explained, “Because Texas Republicans have voted, the original trigger language in our measure is no longer necessary. To make sure the measure is clear to California voters when they have the final say, it has been removed.”
Still, not everyone is satisfied with the process. Mike Columbo, the lead attorney in a lawsuit challenging California’s new congressional maps, argued, “There is more than one reason that Californians may feel misled, including the reason for (our) lawsuit.” The lawsuit, brought by California Republicans and later joined by the U.S. Department of Justice, alleges that the new maps are unconstitutional due to racial gerrymandering. Newsom’s office remains confident the state will prevail in court, but the matter is far from settled.
Timing is now of the essence. A three-judge panel is scheduled to hear a motion for a preliminary injunction on December 3, 2025, to decide whether California’s current maps—used in the 2024 elections—should remain in place for the upcoming cycle. Plaintiffs are pushing for a decision by December 5 to allow for potential appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court before December 19, when candidates begin gathering signatures to waive filing fees for the 2026 midterms. As Columbo put it, “The reason we are asking for such a quick decision is to avoid the confusion and disruption that would occur if we don’t have a decision by Dec. 19 and then later, the court determines that the maps are unconstitutional.”
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, noted that courts generally provide clarity on which map will be used before candidates must declare, even if the underlying case is still unresolved. “People need to know which lines are in place before they have to declare their candidacy,” she explained. “Judges will have to give some indication about whether or not the new lines can be used. That will obviously have huge implications for who runs, in which district and what the contest looks like.”
Meanwhile, in Texas, the uncertainty is creating headaches for election administrators and advocacy groups. La'Dereka Christian of the Texas Civil Rights Project observed, “There are a lot of folks who are already trying to figure out whether or not they actually really want to vote. And this is just another way for them to say, ‘Oh, it's too confusing, it's too much going on, so I'm just not going to worry about it.'”
If the Supreme Court reinstates the new Texas map, some Harris County residents could find themselves eligible to vote in one election but not the other, further muddying the waters. As Ibarra of the ACLU of Texas put it, “We've tried to take it one election at a time. However the map is drawn, or what district lines are in what way for the March election, that goes into effect for who represents them in 2027. And so, trying to make that distinction is really important.”
With California’s June 2, 2026, primary just six months away and Texas’s political calendar packed with back-to-back elections, the pressure is on for courts to deliver clarity and for officials to educate voters. For now, candidates on both sides of the country are campaigning—and fundraising—based on maps that could still change, all while voters wait for the dust to settle on what promises to be a tumultuous election season.
