This is One for the Road 1776 and the first of two podcasts covering gerrymandering—what it is and the Trump Administration's role in using gerrymandering to potentially influence the 2026 midterm and subsequent elections. At issue is control of the US House and, potentially, the Senate. Federal District Court At the urging of President Trump, the Texas State Legislature redrew the state's congressional map. The plan may help garner the Republicans additional seats in the House in the 2026 election. This manipulation of drawing districts that are favorable to one political party is known as gerrymandering—a practice that has become a centuries-old American tradition. You're essentially carving your state into congressional districts that will give your party an edge, and potentially, more seats, in a forthcoming election. This is what happened in Texas. The plan, however, was challenged in a federal district court. After a hearing, the court ruled that race, “rather than politics alone,” was the predominant reason for creating the redrawn map. Consequently, this was an instance of racial gerrymandering, and the new map was thrown out. (1) In a perfect world, redistricting would take place after the ten-year census cycle. At that time, the number of Congressional seats per state would be reproportioned based on a given state's population growth or loss, and theoretically, an equitable map would be redrawn. But Texas opted to redistrict in time for the midterm elections and opened the door for California and other states to similarly engage. It should also be noted that the redistricting process has historically been peppered with lawsuits challenging new maps. Maps that have violated laws have also been thrown out by court orders. It was and remains a contentious process. The Supreme Court In Texas, Ken Paxton, the state's AG and 2026's Republican candidate for the US Senate, filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after the lower court's decision. In response to Paxton's appeal, Justice Alito granted a temporary stay on November 21, 2025, pending a review. And in early December, the Court ruled that the redrawn congressional map would stand. Alito wrote that ….the dissent does not dispute—because it is indisputable—that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple. (2) Race alone was not the predominant reason for the new map; politics was a major player. Thus, the changes passed legal muster. Justice Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion. She supported, as did Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, the lower court's decision. According to Kagan, True, the ultimate goal of Texas's redistricting was to pick up Republican seats. But “[s]ubstantial evidence” revealed that race predominated in the actual drawing of district lines. Id., at 2. So, the District Court concluded, in acting to advance partisan interests, “Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map. (3) So, the lower court's ruling that race predominated in the drawing of the congressional map to serve Republican interests was correct. Its decision should have been upheld. Justice Kagan also indicated that the Purcell principle was a factor in the Court's decision, even though this wasn't explicitly stated. (4) The principle was, actually, one of the reasons used by Texas in its application for a stay of the lower court's ruling. Briefly, the Purcell principle holds that a court's ruling shouldn't have an impact on the “eve” of an election. In the Texas case, the state argued that campaigning had already begun for the 2026 election, and any changes to the redrawn map would have an adverse impact, including the potential to confuse voters. (5) But the lower court had rejected this argument, given the election was months away. The majority of Justices, however, didn't accept this line of reasoning. Texas and California After the Supreme Court announced its decision, Paxton's office issued a press release. It stated, in part, that while the Democrats attempted to abuse the judicial system to steal the U.S. House, I have defended Texas's fundamental right to draw a map that ensures we are represented by Republicans. The Big Beautiful Map will be in effect for 2026, said Attorney General Paxton. Texas is paving the way as we take our country back, district by district, state by state. This map reflects the political climate of our state and is a massive win for Texas and every conservative who is tired of watching the left try to upend the political system with bogus lawsuits. (6) Per Paxton's statement, the Democrats are accused of trying to “abuse the judicial system” to win the House in the next election. In reality, the opponents of the redistricting plan followed an established legal procedure to challenge its validity. The state also made the first move to ensure that new district lines would favor Republican candidates, bolstering the party's chance to win the additional seats. Paxton further stated that Texas is “paving the way” to win back the country from the political left. The Supreme Court's decision is a victory for conservatives who are tired of the bogus lawsuits filed by the left to “upend” our political system. But this raises a question: are similar lawsuits filed by the political right also bogus? In fact, Republicans filed suit to stop California's plan to redraw its congressional districts after Proposition 50 was passed in November 2025. Under Governor Newsom's leadership, Proposition 50 cleared a path for the state to redraw its map in an attempt to balance the seats potentially gained by the Republicans in Texas. But, unlike the case in Texas, the DOJ stepped in to stop California's new map. According to former AG Pam Bondi, California's redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process…” Governor Newsom's attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand. (7) Apparently, a “brazen power grab” in one state is a righteous action in another state. Further, California voters had a chance to stop Proposition 50 in its tracks on election day. Texas voters were not afforded the same opportunity for their state's changes. In response to California's redistricting plans, the state's Republican Party and the Trump White House asked a three-judge panel to throw out the new map. They claimed that the redistricting was primarily based on race, making it illegal. (8) The suit was unsuccessful, and an appeal was made to the Supreme Court. Lawyers for the state of California subsequently requested that the Court leave the redrawn districts in place as it is “deeply unnatural,” the state contended, for a group of California Republicans challenging the map to ask the justices “to step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage by enjoining California's partisan gerrymander after having allowed” Texas to implement a map intended to allow Republicans to pick up five additional seats in that state. (9) Further, given the abbreviated time-frame before the election, it would be disruptive, especially for voters, if the new map were thrown out. And on February 4, 2026, in an unsigned order, the Supreme Court did, in fact, reject the Republican Party's request to block the state's redrawn map. This decision also ended what can be called Phase 1 of Trump's gerrymandering push to affect the 2026 midterm election. At issue is control of the US House and, potentially, the Senate. And this is also the conclusion of Part 1 of our podcast focusing on gerrymandering and its implications for the US. We'll pick-up the current status in part 2. Thanks for listening to One for the Road 1776, a news brief. Notes: * If you want to read about redistricting battles on a state-by-state basis, please see the following article: “Redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections,” Ballotpedia. Last updated on July 27, 2026. https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_ahead_of_the_2026_elections (1) “Supreme Court allows GOP-backed Texas congressional map,” by Megan Stringer, Axios, December 4, 2025. https://www.axios.com/local/san-antonio/2025/12/04/supreme-court-rules-texas-gop-redistricting-map (2) 607 U. S. ____ (2025): SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 25A608. GREG ABBOTT, ET AL. v. LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY. December 4, 2025. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a608_7khn.pdf (3) Ibid. (4) Ibid. (5) You can download and/or read the application for a stay by Texas at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25A608/385468/20251121185051812_25A%20Emergency%20Application.pdf (6) “Attorney General Ken Paxton Successfully Protects Big Beautiful Map in SCOTUS Against Challenges by Left-Wing Groups,” December 04, 2025. Press Release. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-successfully-protects-big-beautiful-map-scotus-against-challenges-left (7) “US justice department joins lawsuit to block California's new electoral map,” by Lauren Gambino, The Guardian, November 12, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/13/california-electoral-map-lawsuit-justice-department#:~:text=Trump%20administration-,US%20justice%20department%20joins%20lawsuit%20to%20block%20California's%20new%20electoral,of%20Californians%20will%20not%20stand.%E2%80%9D (8) “Republicans ask federal court to overturn California's new Prop. 50 maps,” by Maya C. Miller and Mikhail Zinshteyn, CAL MATTERS. December 16, 2025. https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/12/proposition-50-republican-lawsuit-hearing/ (9) “Supreme Court Clears Way for California Voting Map,” by Abbie VanSickle, The New York Times, February 4, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/us/politics/supreme-court-california-cong
