On July 9, 2025, a series of pivotal legal battles unfolded across the American South, spotlighting the enduring and contentious issue of racial gerrymandering and voting rights. In courtrooms from North Carolina to Texas and Alabama, judges and litigants grappled with allegations that state election maps were drawn to dilute Black voting power, raising profound questions about race, politics, and democracy in the 21st century.
In Winston-Salem, North Carolina, a federal trial wrapped up after intense testimony over claims that the state’s 2023 redistricting plans unlawfully diminished the voting strength of Black citizens. The North Carolina NAACP, Common Cause, and groups of Black and Latino voters brought the consolidated lawsuits, arguing that Republican legislators drew districts to undercut Black voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice. The defendants countered that the lines were drawn for partisan advantage, not racial reasons.
Lawyer Lali Madduri, representing Black and Latino voters, emphasized that although North Carolina gained a congressional seat following the 2020 census—largely due to population growth within the Black community—this demographic shift did not translate into increased political power. Madduri noted, “Black voters were able to elect candidates of their choice in 6.2 of the state’s 14 congressional districts in 2022, while that dropped to 3.8 districts in the 2023 plan.”
The testimony spotlighted districts in the Piedmont Triad region and Mecklenburg County, areas where maps were redrawn to eliminate seats favorable to Democrats. Madduri described how Black voters in Guilford County were spread across three districts, effectively diluting their influence. She added, “Evidence supports that race was a factor. The 2023 plan is worse than the 2022 plan on every metric.”
Under the court-ordered 2022 plan, North Carolina elected an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to Congress. However, the 2023 Republican-approved maps led to a 10-4 Republican advantage in the 2024 elections, signaling a significant political shift.
Hilary Harris Klein, representing the NC NAACP and Common Cause, highlighted the 1st Congressional District in eastern North Carolina, which has elected Black representatives since 1992. The 2023 map altered this district by removing Pitt County and parts of Greenville, adding majority-white coastal counties instead. Klein noted this change disproportionately impacted Black voters’ ability to elect their preferred candidates.
The state Senate maps also came under scrutiny, with Republicans accused of dividing the “Black Belt” counties, reducing the number of Black state senators from two or three to just one.
On the defense, Republican lawyer Katherine McKnight cited testimony from Sen. Ralph Hise, co-chair of the Senate Redistricting Committee, who insisted that racial data was not used and that districts were drawn to “perform for Republican candidates.” McKnight argued that plaintiffs’ claims relied on circumstantial evidence and suggested they were “dressing up partisan gerrymandering claims in racial garb.”
One contested district, Senate District 8, was described by plaintiffs as a racial gerrymander due to the “Wilmington notch,” where predominantly Black neighborhoods were combined with rural counties. McKnight countered that this was a politically motivated decision, highlighting that Republican Sen. Mike Lee increased his winning margin from 1,710 votes in 2022 to over 10,000 in 2024.
Expert testimony further complicated the case. Stanford political scientist Jonathan Rodden testified that even after accounting for party preferences, race had a significant effect on district composition. However, Republican analyst Sean Trende challenged Rodden’s methods as unreliable for detecting racial gerrymandering. The three-judge panel—appointed by Republican presidents—heard the evidence and is expected to rule by early August 2025.
Meanwhile, in Texas, the state announced plans on July 9 to redraw its congressional map following a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice accusing Texas of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The DOJ’s letter targeted four districts, three in Houston, all represented by minority lawmakers, and threatened legal action if the state failed to act.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott added the redistricting effort to the agenda for a special legislative session beginning July 21. However, court records revealed a striking contradiction: State Sen. Joan Huffman, who chaired the 2021 Senate Redistricting Committee and drew the maps, testified on June 10 that she drew the maps “blind to race.”
This inconsistency has prompted pro-voting plaintiffs to file an emergency motion to reopen testimony, asserting that “new evidence reveals that witnesses…potentially falsely testified” about race not being considered. They argued that either the testimony or the state’s current stance is false, and the court deserves to investigate.
The controversy is further complicated by a recent 5th Circuit ruling in Petteway v. Galveston County, which held that the federal Voting Rights Act does not permit minority-coalition districts. The DOJ argued that the four challenged districts were unconstitutional because they were created as a result of federal court orders requiring such coalitions, thus impermissibly considering race.
Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas’ 38 congressional seats, a disproportionate share compared to their vote share. The Trump White House has pressured Texas to create an even more GOP-friendly map to maintain control of Congress in the 2026 midterms, and state leaders appear poised to comply.
Farther south, in Montgomery, Alabama, federal judges are set to hear arguments on July 29 regarding a request to reinstate the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act for the state’s future congressional maps. This follows a 2023 ruling that Alabama intentionally diluted Black voting strength in its congressional districts.
Black voters and civil rights groups, who successfully challenged Alabama’s map, want a three-judge panel to require federal review of any new maps through the 2030 Census cycle. The plaintiffs liken Alabama’s defiance of court orders to the state’s resistance to civil rights in the 1960s, stating that it “sought to ignore, evade, and strategically frustrate attempts to remedy racial discrimination.”
Alabama’s Attorney General Steve Marshall opposes the request, warning that “Preclearance flips the burden on the State to prove its innocence. That power is extraordinary.” The U.S. Department of Justice supports Alabama’s position, arguing that preclearance should only apply in cases of “pervasive, flagrant, widespread, and rampant discrimination,” which they claim does not describe Alabama’s conduct.
The same three-judge panel blocked Alabama’s state-drawn map in May 2025 for failing to comply with directives to create a plan fair to Black voters. Alabama is appealing this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
These cases collectively underscore the ongoing struggle over voting rights and racial representation in the United States. As courts weigh evidence, testimony, and legal precedent, the outcomes will likely shape the political landscape and the rights of minority voters for years to come.
