Redistricting Battles Heat Up After Supreme Court Ruling

Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent landmark ruling on redistricting has prompted lawmakers in multiple states to reconsider their electoral maps ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The decision, issued on April 29, focused on a congressional map that Louisiana drew after a lower court stated that a prior map violated the Voting Rights Act. That law prohibits race-based discrimination in election practices. The lower court stated that Louisiana’s initial map discriminated against black people by not including an additional majority-black district.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais stated that the lower court decision, which resulted in Louisiana drawing a new map, erred. A majority of the justices said race could not be a primary consideration when states draw maps for elections.

The ruling has caused states, particularly in the South, to redraw their congressional maps ahead of the midterms.

Since Texas redrew its House districts to favor Republicans last year, eight states have adopted new congressional maps. Republicans believe the changes could net them as many as 13 seats, while Democrats estimate they could gain up to 10. Still, some of the newly drawn districts are expected to be competitive in November, potentially limiting the gains either party hopes to achieve.

Here is the latest on the redistricting battles nationwide.

Louisiana

After the Supreme Court decision, Louisiana politicians said their current map was unconstitutional and therefore shouldn’t be used in upcoming elections. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry quickly suspended the state’s primary for U.S. House elections, set for May 16.

“Yesterday’s historic Supreme Court victory for Louisiana has an immediate consequence for the state,” Landry and state Attorney General Liz Murrill said in an April 30 statement posted on social media.

Louisiana requested a quicker-than-usual judgment from the Supreme Court, which usually issues a formal judgment after 32 days of releasing its opinion. The state worried that a delay could complicate redrawing a new map before the midterms. After Landry halted the primary election, a group of individual voters and activist groups filed suit to block that decision. Litigation in that case is ongoing.

Alabama

After the Supreme Court’s decision, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the ruling supported his own state’s redistricting efforts.

A federal court had required Alabama, like Louisiana, to include an additional majority-minority district. That ruling conflicted with what the Supreme Court stated in its recent decision, Marshall argued.

He also asked the Supreme Court to intervene, telling it that a quick decision was necessary.

“Expedited consideration is necessary to afford Alabama the same opportunity as other States to use a lawfully enacted congressional map free of an injunction that cannot be reconciled with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ‘as properly construed,’” he wrote, citing the Callais decision.

Alabama’s legislature has already attempted to implement a new map, passing one on May 6.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey called a special legislative session following the Supreme Court’s decision.

“[The] Supreme Court issued a positive decision in the Louisiana v. Callais case, which I said was encouraging for our own pending litigation,” Ivy said.

The Republican-led Alabama House on May 6 passed legislation authorizing special congressional primaries as Republicans pursue the possibility of implementing a new congressional map before the November elections. The bill now heads to the state Senate.

Alabama is seeking to overturn a federal court order that created a second congressional district with a near-majority black population. That court-drawn map led to the 2024 election of Rep. Shomari Figures (D-Ala.), a black Democrat. Republicans instead want to reinstate the 2023 map approved by state lawmakers that they believe would give the GOP a chance to win back Figures’s south Alabama district.

The legislation passed the House along party lines after four hours of heated debate.

The measure depends on either the U.S. Supreme Court or a lower federal court lifting the existing injunction blocking Alabama’s preferred map.

Under current law, Alabama’s congressional primaries are set for May 19. If courts side with the state, the legislation would invalidate those results for congressional races and require the governor to schedule new primaries using revised district boundaries.

Absentee voting is already underway. A new congressional map would be used starting this year.

But Alabama remains under a court order prohibiting the use of new congressional maps until after the 2030 census.

Nonetheless, Ivey called the special session so that Alabama can act immediately if it receives a favorable ruling. If the state gets that, it would revert to the maps drawn by the legislature for congressional districts in 2023 and state senate districts in 2021.

Alabama officials believe that the state could receive a favorable ruling because the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Louisiana case significantly narrowed how courts can use the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to require majority-black districts.

Tennessee

A week after the Supreme Court decision, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed into law a new map ahead of the 2026 midterms. This came on the same day that the GOP-controlled state legislature passed the new lines.

Lee said the goal was to ensure that the districts were “fair, legal, and defensible” following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Louisiana case.

He didn’t specifically cite the Supreme Court’s ruling, but the new session came after pressure from President Donald Trump and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who urged Tennessee Republicans to redraw the map in a way that could eliminate the state’s lone black-majority congressional seat in Memphis.

The new map would be for the 2026 election.

The candidate qualifying period in Tennessee ended in March, and the primary election is scheduled for Aug. 6.

It would divide Shelby County, home to Memphis, into three districts instead of the current two. This would consist of redrawing the state’s Ninth Congressional District, the lone Democratic district in the state, and making it lean Republican.

The member of Congress who is in that seat, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), said he will file a lawsuit in response to the new map.

Mississippi

Like Louisiana and Alabama, Mississippi also faced a court ruling accusing it of diluting the voting strength of black residents.

State lawmakers had delayed action pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Callais. Just before that decision, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves called for a legislative session.

He indicated that he was hopeful the Supreme Court would give his state more flexibility.

“It is my sincere hope that, in deciding Callais, the U.S. Supreme Court will reaffirm the animating principle that all Americans are created equal and that when the government classifies its citizens on the basis of race, even as a perceived remedy to right a wrong, it engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that Americans of a particular race, because of their race, think alike and share the same interests and preferences—a concept that is odious to a free people,” he said on social media.

In his order last month, Reeves scheduled the special session for 21 days after the day of the Supreme Court’s decision.

South Carolina

South Carolina is also looking to change its congressional map following the Supreme Court decision.

The state House on May 6 approved a resolution allowing lawmakers to return after the regular session ends to redraw congressional districts, a move that could eliminate the state’s lone Democratic-held seat. The measure now heads to the Senate, where it requires a two-thirds majority to pass.

Following the vote, Republican House leaders said they intend to unveil a new congressional map on May 7 and convene committee meetings on May 8. During floor debate, however, Republicans didn’t directly answer Democrats’ questions about why they were prepared to halt the June 9 U.S. House primaries after candidate filing had already closed, as well as how much postponing and rescheduling the elections could cost taxpayers.