Last week, Hakeem Jeffries declared ultimate victory in the Great Redistricting War of 2026. Democrats had stalled the new Texas map in federal court while Virginia narrowly passed a referendum to create a congressional map that increased their representation from 6:5 to 10:1. Democrats and the media wasted no time in bragging that Donald Trump's strategy had backfired.
As it turns out, though, the game may have only reached halftime. The Supreme Court finally and fully reversed the district court order that found the new congressional map in Texas had violated the Voting Rights Act. The order came down this morning without comment, but did note that the three liberal justices dissented:
The U.S. Supreme Court formally reinstated on Monday a redrawn Texas electoral map that was designed to add more Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives, as President Donald Trump's party seeks to keep control of Congress in the November congressional elections.
The move by the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, formalizes an interim decision it made in December to revive the map of U.S. House districts in Texas.
The reinstated map - sought by Trump, approved in August 2025 by the Republican-led state legislature and signed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott - could flip as many as five currently Democratic-held U.S. House seats to Republicans.
As they did in December, the court's three liberal justices dissented from Monday's ruling.
The Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision that had blocked Texas from using the map. The lower court had found the map to be likely racially discriminatory in violation of U.S. constitutional protections. Trump last year prodded Republican lawmakers to redraw state congressional maps to bolster his party's chances in the midterms.
This may offer some insight into the upcoming decision on the VRA, courtesy of a challenge to Louisiana's 2024 redistricting. At issue in this case is Section 2, which has been used to justify the use of racial demographics when shaping congressional districts. The court heard oral arguments in October but has yet to release the decision, reportedly because the liberal justices are slow-walking their dissents as a means to keep the decision from impacting this year's midterms. Today's order may indicate that the majority in that case has decided to use the "shadow docket" to work around their alleged obstruction, and tends to corroborate the impression left from oral arguments that the court will end race-based policy preferences in redistricting.
With that, though, the court has basically restored a stalemate between Texas and California. Both states have the potential to flip as many as five seats in this year's midterms. So does that make Jeffries' claim valid, considering Virginia's four-seat flip? Only if the referendum passes muster at the state supreme court, and ... that's still a very open question. The court held oral arguments today, where the judges sounded a wee bit skeptical about the argument that the Democrats had to violate the state constitution to save it, or something:
Attorneys defending the Virginia voter-approved redistricting ballot amendment faced sustained — and, at times, skeptical — questioning Monday from the Supreme Court of Virginia, as justices weighed whether to invalidate the measure over alleged procedural violations.
The case centers on a Republican-led challenge arguing that the Democrat-controlled General Assembly failed to follow the strict constitutional process required to place a redistricting amendment before voters. If the court agrees, it could nullify last week’s narrowly approved statewide vote and upend newly drawn congressional districts that Democrats hope will net them several additional House seats.
At the heart of Monday’s arguments was a technical but consequential dispute over what counts as an “election” under the Virginia Constitution, and whether lawmakers acted too late by advancing the amendment after early voting had already begun.
Only three of the seven justices on the bench questioned attorneys for the state and amendment proponents, making it difficult to predict where the court will ultimately lean. Several of the questions centered on whether it is plausible to treat Election Day as a single, fixed event, given that millions of voters now cast ballots weeks in advance.
Justice Wesley Russell Jr. repeatedly challenged the state’s position that early voting occurs “before” the election, noting that such a reading would mean “every single vote that is cast” could theoretically occur before the election even begins. The line of questioning underscored some members of the court’s apparent discomfort with the manner in which the amendment was placed on the ballot, a move challengers argue violated the Virginia Constitution.
That's not the only issue at hand in this challenge. The state legislature rushed this onto the ballot after early voting had begun by using a special session called for budgetary matters. That also violates Virginia law limiting the scope of special sessions of its legislature. There are other issues besides those too, including the highly partisan and misleading ballot description that arguably violates state electoral law. The NY Post picked up part of those arguments, too:
Right off the bat, a justice dismissed Seligman’s argument about the people of Virginia deciding the referendum and underscored the irregularities of the process.
The other justices who asked questions largely pushed Seligman over tougher procedural issues and generally had easier queries for the GOP’s lawyer. ...
Another procedural issue raised involved the General Assembly neglecting to publish the proposed amendment 90 days in advance, then retroactively repealing that regulation.
“There are lots of voters across the Commonwealth who are not totally educated on everything going on in Richmond, and they need time,” contended Thomas McCarthy, the lawyer repping the Republicans.
It certainly sounds as though they are not inclined to rubber-stamp this. We'll see, but even if SCOVA lets this pass, Jeffries may have declared victory a skosh too soon. Today, Ron DeSantis entered the chat, and he brought slides:
#BreakingNews #Commitment2026 @Hearst @WESH Just messaged with the spokesperson for @GovRonDeSantis and, yes, this map is legit. It appears to condense @RepDarrenSoto and @RepMaxwellFrost into a tiny urban Orlando space, which would mean one of them losing a seat. pic.twitter.com/v3rEwZ294a
— Greg Fox (@GregFoxWESH) April 27, 2026
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has proposed a new map for US House districts that appears to show Republicans gaining an advantage in four seats now held by Democrats.
His office shared the map first with Fox News and referred CNN to the map posted on the network’s site. The release comes one day before the Florida Legislature opens a special session called by DeSantis, in part, to draw new US House districts.
DeSantis’ proposal is the latest salvo in a coast-to-coast redistricting fight that President Donald Trump kicked off last year when Texas drew new lines at his behest.
Republicans hold a supermajority in the state legislature and have made clear that they will proceed with DeSantis’ map proposal rather than draw one of their own.
Florida's current map favors the GOP on a 20-8 ratio, but that's mainly because DeSantis transformed Florida from a purple state to a deep-red state over the last six years. Its map reflects that reality more than just cooking the books, but now that Virginia has gone down that road, DeSantis is ready to answer. Is this great governance? Maybe not, but it's strategically necessary. Jeffrey Blehar sums it up nicely:
Make no mistake: This is a savagely cynical gerrymander. It does positively disgusting things to the Tampa/St. Petersburg region, dismembering the Democratic hub (and swingy suburbs) among several surrounding districts. That it makes all of this look almost normal and compact is largely a trick of Florida’s demographic geography. In fact, I worry about whether these districts can be defended in an environment likely to be as difficult for Republicans as 2026.
But I worry less than I used to. And I certainly don’t care about “fairness” or “norms” anymore, not after having clung to those like flotsam from a shipwreck for half a year. Most of downstate Virginia is about to be represented by five guys from Fairfax County, and these particular ones don’t even serve Cajun fries. If the redistricting arms race is now truly unavoidable, then logic dictates this response. I hope DeSantis gets his map — and I hope to see more of him after 2026.
Never declare victory before the last shot is fired. And there are still red states that could pick up where DeSantis left off. Stay tuned.
