In the waning weeks of 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court sent shockwaves through the American political landscape, clearing the way for a contentious, gerrymandered congressional map in Texas to stand for the 2026 midterm elections. According to The Fulcrum, the case—Abbott v. LULAC—was more than a mere skirmish over district lines; it marked a dramatic shift in how the nation’s highest court views and handles the thorny issue of partisan gerrymandering, with ripple effects now playing out in statehouses and courthouses across the country.
The Texas map, critics say, is designed to dilute the voting power of the state’s Black and Latino populations. But the Supreme Court majority, in a decision led by Justice Samuel Alito, chose to focus on the map’s partisan intent rather than its racial impact. "The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map…was partisan advantage pure and simple," Alito wrote, according to The Fulcrum. In a twist of legal logic, the Court essentially gave its blessing to partisan gerrymandering, so long as it could be distinguished from racial discrimination—a distinction that many voting rights advocates argue is both artificial and dangerous.
This ruling did not come out of nowhere. In 2004, then-Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that redistricting designed to deny fair representation for partisan reasons would violate the Constitution. Fast forward to 2019, Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged in Rucho v. Common Cause that “excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust…such gerrymandering is ‘incompatible with democratic principles.’” Yet, paradoxically, Roberts also wrote that federal courts were incapable of resolving such disputes—a position that paved the way for the hands-off approach now on display.
In the Texas case, the Supreme Court overruled a lower court’s finding that race was impermissibly used to draw the new map. Instead, the justices insisted that state lawmakers deserved a “presumption of good faith” if their gerrymandering was for political, not racial, gain. The Court also invoked the so-called Purcell principle—typically used to avoid last-minute changes before an election—to justify leaving the map in place, even though the general election was nearly a year away and Texas primaries wouldn’t occur until March 2026. As The Fulcrum notes, this interpretation stretches the Purcell principle to its breaking point, effectively making every election “imminent” and shielding even blatant gerrymanders from timely judicial review.
The Court’s decision has left many observers—on both sides of the aisle—confused and frustrated. For pro-democracy advocates, the ruling represents a backward slide, undermining decades of efforts to ensure fair and effective representation. The concern is not just theoretical: the ruling could soon be compounded if the justices further weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last major federal tool for challenging racially discriminatory maps. Oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais this past October suggest that outcome is far from unlikely.
With federal courts increasingly sidelined, the battle over gerrymandering has shifted to the states. As Stateline reports, state courts are now the primary battleground for legal challenges to partisan maps. Advocates are turning to state constitutions, many of which guarantee free and fair elections and equal protection—sometimes with language even more robust than the U.S. Constitution. "Basically, every one of the 50 states has something in its constitution that could be used to constrain partisan gerrymandering," said Samuel Wang, director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, to Stateline.
Missouri has become a focal point in this new era of state-level redistricting warfare. After lawmakers there passed a gerrymandered congressional map in the fall of 2025, opponents quickly gathered more than 300,000 signatures—nearly triple the threshold required—to force a statewide vote on whether to overturn the map. Yet, Republican state officials have announced their intention to use the disputed map in the meantime, setting up a high-stakes showdown in the courts. Missouri courts appear likely to weigh in, and legal wrangling over whether enough valid signatures were gathered before the map was signed into law could ultimately determine whether voters get a say.
"If we need to continue to litigate to enforce our constitutional rights, we will," said Richard von Glahn, a progressive activist leading the People Not Politicians campaign, as quoted by Stateline. The Missouri dispute is emblematic of a broader trend: as federal courts step back, state courts are being asked to interpret often-untested constitutional provisions. Some states, like Utah, have already seen their supreme courts rule that legislatures violated state constitutions by repealing independent redistricting processes. Others, like North Carolina, have seen court decisions flip after changes in judicial composition.
The stakes are high and the landscape is shifting. As Stateline notes, at least ten state supreme courts have found they can decide cases involving partisan gerrymandering. Yet, four—including Missouri’s—have previously ruled that they cannot review such claims, though challenges on other grounds may still proceed. In Utah, for example, the state supreme court found lawmakers had violated the constitution, prompting a district court judge to adopt a new map likely to result in the election of a Democrat in a state where all four seats are currently held by Republicans.
This unprecedented mid-decade redistricting arms race has been one of 2025’s dominant political stories, with states like Texas, California, Indiana, Utah, and North Carolina all redrawing maps ahead of 2026. Even in Indiana, a proposed congressional gerrymander backed by the Trump administration was rejected by state senators, with some lawmakers expressing deep concerns about limiting court involvement and bypassing the right to a jury trial—a right described as “sacred” by Indiana Republican state Sen. Greg Walker during floor debate, according to Stateline.
Meanwhile, legal advocates and organizations like the Campaign Legal Center are focusing their efforts on defending independent redistricting commissions and challenging unfair maps through state court lawsuits. In September, the Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of Missouri voters, challenging what it called an “egregious” gerrymander. The hope among reformers is that state-level action—whether through courts, commissions, or referenda—can succeed where federal remedies have faltered.
Yet, as the legal and political battles rage, the underlying issue remains: who gets to draw the lines, and who gets to decide if those lines are fair? The answers, it seems, are growing more complex and contentious with each passing year. For those committed to defending democratic principles, the fight continues—one courtroom and one election at a time.
