If Democrats flip just three seats this November, they will reclaim a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time since 2022.

The party controlling the White House almost always loses seats in midterm elections. During President Trump’s first term, for example, Democrats won control of the House of Representatives with a net gain of 40 seats in the 2018 midterms.[1] But those elections used congressional district maps drawn in 2011.

During the 2021 redistricting process, Republicans were able to gerrymander more states than Democrats, netting them an estimated three-seat advantage.[2] That advantage has since grown. In the summer of 2025, President Trump urged Republican-controlled states to redraw district maps to help the party retain its control of Congress. That call triggered an ongoing mid-decade redistricting battle involving both red and blue states. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Voting Rights Act (VRA) decision opened a path for more Republican state legislatures to redistrict before the 2026 midterms (and ensures redistricting will remain in play heading into the 2028 elections). Some newly drawn districts could remain competitive despite efforts to advantage one party over the other[3] and others continue to be litigated, but Republicans appear to have won these battles, if not yet the war. The number of toss-up House seats has decreased significantly as compared to the midterm elections in President Trump’s first term and President Biden’s term.[4] And, as discussed below, redistricting over the past year could net Republicans up to ten additional seats in the upcoming elections.

Whether the GOP’s current structural advantage will continue its House majority in the next Congress remains unclear. Polls show Democrats lead Republicans in generic congressional ballot tests.[5] But candidate selection and unforeseen and unresolved events could significantly affect individual races, even as national trends forecast difficulties for the GOP.

Permissible vs. Unlawful Gerrymandering

States historically redraw their congressional district maps once each decade to reflect population changes recorded in the decennial census. Mid-decade redistricting is less common, but it has occurred – usually after a court finds a congressional district map violates state or federal law, more rarely to achieve partisan advantage.[6] Federal law does not prohibit mid-decade redistricting if it complies with the same constitutional and statutory rules that apply to any redistricting plan.[7] Some states explicitly prohibit or allow it, but most lack laws directly addressing the issue.[8]

Gerrymandering to advantage a political party also does not violate federal law. Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” leaving resolution of related disputes to state courts and legislatures.[9] The states have taken disparate approaches to the issue. Some have created independent redistricting commissions to reduce partisanship as a factor in redistricting.[10] A relatively small number of state courts have struck down district maps as violations of their constitution.[11] Other states have enacted statutes or are subject to state court rulings limiting partisan maps.[12] But for many states, the redistricting process remains subject to the political desires of their legislature.

Racial gerrymandering, on the other hand, may be challenged in federal court as a violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the VRA.

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from denying any person equal protection under the law.[13] Any law expressly distinguishing among citizens based on race must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest.[14] The same standard of review applies to ostensibly race-neutral laws that serve as mere pretext for racial discrimination.[15] For racial gerrymandering claims alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause, the jurisprudence evolved to require a showing that race was the government’s predominant consideration in redistricting.[16] When a state defends a congressional map on the grounds that it redistricted for partisan advantage, courts will presume that the legislature acted in good faith absent evidence that race drove the redistricting.[17]

Courts have relied more on the Fourteenth Amendment to address racial discrimination in voting.[18] But the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the states from denying or abridging a U.S. citizen’s right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” and affirmatively grants Congress the power to enact laws to protect voting rights.[19]

For decades after ratification of these amendments, some states continued to suppress the right of Black citizens to vote.[20] In response, Congress enacted the VRA. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits the states from imposing or applying any voting prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure in a manner that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right . . . to vote on account of race or color,” or membership in a language minority.[21] The statute further provides that a claimant establishes a violation of Section 2 by proving that the challenged state action resulted in a minority group having less opportunity than other voters to elect representatives of their choice.[22] In considering such claims, a court may consider the extent to which protected minorities have been elected to office, but the statute specifies that it does not mandate proportional representation by members of minority groups.[23]

In Thornburg v. Gingles and related cases, the U.S. Supreme Court established three preconditions and a “totality of the circumstances” test necessary to prove minority vote dilution under Section 2. A plaintiff must first demonstrate that:

• the minority group is large enough and geographically compact enough to form a majority in a reasonably drawn district;
• the minority group constitutes a politically cohesive unit; and
• the majority racial group usually votes as a bloc to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.

After establishing these preconditions, the plaintiff must prove, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the electoral process is not equally open to minority voters as compared to other members of the electorate.[24] This framework largely looked for evidence of discriminatory results to establish minority vote dilution.

Since enactment of the VRA, the courts and state legislatures have interpreted Section 2’s ban on racial discrimination in voting to allow, and sometimes require, the consideration of race in redistricting to protect the voting power of minority groups. This resulted in many states drawing majority-minority districts. But there is an inherent tension between that approach and the traditional constitutional rule that prohibits the government from engaging in race-based conduct.

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in April 2026, in Louisiana v. Callais. Specifically, the Court considered whether compliance with Section 2 of the VRA provides a compelling governmental interest to justify race-predominant districting under a strict scrutiny standard of review.[25] It held that it can, but only if Section 2 is properly construed.[26] The Court interpreted the statutory text to require that minority voters must have an equal chance to elect the candidate of their choice as compared to the chance afforded to any nonminority group to achieve its preferred electoral outcome.[27] A state provides the requisite equal opportunity when it draws a congressional map on the basis of factors unrelated to race, including to protect incumbents or advantage a political party.[28] The Court insisted that this interpretation does not require proof of intentional discrimination, but it does require a plaintiff alleging minority vote dilution to produce evidence that supports a strong inference of intentional racial discrimination on the part of the state.[29] If either race or politics could explain a district’s contours, Section 2 cannot impose liability.[30] The Court noted that this reading of Section 2 is consistent with the limited authority conferred on Congress by the Fifteenth Amendment to bar state action motivated by discriminatory intent.[31]

The Court updated the Gingles framework to align with this construction of Section 2 and to reflect social, political, and legal developments since Gingles was decided 40 years prior.[32] Going forward, to satisfy the first Gingles precondition (a minority group large and compact enough to form a majority in a reasonably drawn district) it is not enough for a Section 2 plaintiff to show that the state could create a majority-minority district. Instead, the plaintiff must prove that the state’s failure to create a majority-minority district diluted the minority vote, as evidenced by illustrative maps that do not use race as a districting criterion and that meet all of the state’s legitimate districting objectives, including political ones.[33] A plaintiff that cannot make this showing fails to demonstrate that the state’s map was driven by unlawful racial considerations.

For the second and third Gingles preconditions (the minority group engages in politically cohesive voting and the majority group engages in racial bloc voting), a simple showing that the majority and minority groups prefer different candidates cannot prove racial bloc voting.[34] A Section 2 plaintiff must now isolate race from party affiliation and show that minority and majority voters have divergent voting patterns within the same political party.

Finally, under the updated Gingles’ totality of the circumstances test (the political process is not equally open to minority voters), the courts must now give more weight to evidence of present-day intentional voting discrimination based on race, as opposed to discrimination that occurred in the past or current disparities characterized as the ongoing effects of past societal discrimination.[35]

The updated Gingles framework thus shifts from one focused on discriminatory results to one more heavily weighted on evidence implying that race, rather than partisanship or other permissible factors, drove a state’s districting decisions.

Some scholars believe that Section 2 plaintiffs will struggle to satisfy the new Gingles framework. If that proves true, any judicial limits on gerrymandering will more likely flow from state law.[36] In the context of the current mid-decade redistricting battles, the Callais decision eliminated a constraint on states seeking partisan advantage in the House by opening a path for GOP-controlled states to eliminate existing majority-minority districts.

Round One: Partisan Gerrymandering

Texas was the first state to answer President Trump’s call for mid-decade redistricting. In August 2025, the GOP-controlled state legislature passed, and Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed into law, a redistricting plan intended to make five of the 12 House seats currently held by Democrats more favorable for Republican candidates.[37]

Texas Republicans argued that they redistricted to further the lawful political goal of increasing the number of Republicans in the state’s congressional delegation. But Governor Abbott initially justified the move by citing to a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that four of the state’s districts were unconstitutional “coalition districts,” meaning majority-minority districts that lack a single racial majority.[38] Several plaintiff groups filed lawsuits in federal court, challenging the new map as an unlawful racial gerrymander.

A federal judicial panel[39] overturned the new map in November 2025, finding substantial evidence that the legislature had engaged in racial gerrymandering.[40] But the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the panel’s ruling pending its own decision in the case,[41] allowing Texas to use the disputed map for its midterm primaries in March 2026. The Supreme Court issued its final opinion on April 27, 2026, striking down the panel’s ruling and reinstating the new map favored by Republicans.[42]

Some have questioned the new Texas map’s practical efficacy. Gerrymandering strategies generally aim to spread supportive voters across districts to help the controlling party win more seats. But if the gerrymandering party spreads its voters too thinly across districts, it could put previously reliable districts at risk. This failure, called “dummymandering,” is more likely to result when prior gerrymandering has left few districts competitive enough for the controlling party to try for a pickup. The risk is exacerbated in wave elections when a considerable number of voters flip their partisan preference to show dissatisfaction with the party in control. A recent Texas election highlighted this risk, raising concerns that the state’s Hispanic voters could abandon the GOP in large numbers this year.[43]

California was the first blue state to respond to Texas’s redistricting effort. In August 2025, the state’s Democratic legislature passed, and Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed into law a redistricting plan that aimed to make five of the state’s nine congressional districts held by Republicans more favorable for Democrats.[44] The legislation set a special election for voters to consider an amendment to the state’s Constitution that would adopt the new map through 2030, at which point map-drawing authority would return to the state’s independent redistricting commission. Voters approved the ballot measure last November.

California Republicans filed a lawsuit in federal court, challenging the redistricting as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering favoring Hispanic voters. In January 2026, a judicial panel upheld the new map as a lawful partisan gerrymander.[45] A month later, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an injunction request filed by the same plaintiffs.[46]

Five other states acted in quick succession.

Missouri: In late August 2025, Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe (R) announced a special state legislative session to consider redistricting legislation. The next month, the legislature approved a bill, subsequently signed by the governor, making one of the state’s two congressional districts currently represented by Democrats more favorable for Republican candidates.[47]

In March 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against a challenge to the new map, rejecting arguments that the state’s constitution limits the legislature’s plenary power to enact mid-decade redistricting.[48] Two months later, the same court issued rulings in two other cases challenging the redistricting. In one, it upheld a lower court’s finding that the new map does not violate the Missouri Constitution’s district “compactness” requirement.[49] In the other, it affirmed a lower court ruling rejecting claims that the governor lacked authority under the state constitution to call a special session of the legislature to consider the redistricting legislation.[50]

Separately, in May 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against voters who argued that the state constitution automatically suspended use of the new map upon filing of a related ballot referendum petition with the secretary of state.[51] That decision may foreclose the possibility of suspending use of the new map before the upcoming midterm elections. Voters filed the referendum petition challenging the redistricting in December 2025, supported by nearly three times the minimum number of signatures required by law. Historically, a ballot referendum petition with that number of signatures would prompt the secretary of state to suspend the challenged law until voters decide the issue.[52] But the Republican holding that office paused suspension of the new map pending results of a petition signature verification process. Under state law, he has until August 4 to certify the petition.[53] August 4, 2026, is also the state’s primary election date, and Republicans hope that certification on or just before Election Day would make it impossible to conduct that election using the old map.

North Carolina: In October 2025, the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature redrew its map in an effort to make one Black-majority district historically represented by Democrats[54] more favorable to Republicans. Republicans insist that their motivation was purely partisan, but Democrats have argued that the new map unlawfully diluted the minority vote. Under state law, Governor Josh Stein (D) cannot veto redistricting plans.

In November 2025, a federal judicial panel unanimously denied a preliminary injunction request in a ruling covering two lawsuits challenging the new map, both of which allege that the redistricting violates the U.S. Constitution.[55] The panel’s ruling allows the state to move forward with the new map.

Ohio: The Ohio Constitution establishes a complicated congressional redistricting process. Under that law, the state’s Redistricting Commission approved a new congressional map in October 2025, making two districts represented by Democrats a bit more favorable to Republicans.[56] That map will remain in place until 2031.

Utah: A new congressional district map selected by a judge in November 2025 gives Utah Democrats an opportunity to flip one House seat held by a Republican.[57]

In February 2026, the state’s supreme court denied an appeal of that court order brought by state legislators on the basis that the appeal was not timely filed.[58] The decision also dismissed a request to block a lower court’s ruling that voided the legislature’s prior congressional map, drawn in 2021.[59]

Utah Republicans filed a separate lawsuit asking a federal judicial panel to declare the new map unconstitutional and either allow the prior 2021 map to remain in effect or remand to the legislature to draw a new one.[60] The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed that case in July 2026.[61]

Virginia: Virginia’s Democratic-controlled state legislature attempted a mid-decade redistricting that would have made four Republican-held seats more favorable to Democratic candidates. Had that effort succeeded, it might have netted Democrats a one-seat advantage in the first round of the redistricting war. But the state’s Supreme Court struck down the new map.[62]

The Virginia Constitution mandates that the state’s non-partisan redistricting commission shall draw congressional district maps once every ten years.[63] Democrats sought to amend that provision to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt a new map effective through 2030. Amending the state’s constitution requires three steps: (1) the legislature must approve a proposed amendment in two consecutive legislative sessions; (2) an intervening election of the House of Delegates must be held; and (3) voters must then approve the amendment by referendum.[64]

The Democratic-controlled legislature approved its redistricting amendment during a special session on October 31, 2025 – that amendment would have moved redistricting authority from the commission to the legislature through 2030. A general election for the House of Delegates concluded on November 4, 2025. The next legislature then voted to approve the proposed amendment in January 2026, at the start of its regular legislative session. Voters approved the amendment by ballot referendum in April 2026.

In May 2026, the Virginia Supreme Court nullified the referendum’s legal efficacy. The decision hinged on the definition of “election day” in state law. Early voting in the “intervening election” began on September 19, 2025, and approximately 40 percent of the total vote for that election cycle had already been cast by the time the legislature took its first of the two required votes to approve the proposed constitutional amendment.[65] The court determined that the clear purpose of the intervening-election requirement is to give all voters time to understand the purpose of a proposed amendment and the candidates’ positions on it, so that they may vote accordingly.[66] Early voters were denied that opportunity. The court therefore ruled that the legislative process used to advance the redistricting amendment violated the state’s constitution and incurably tainted the resulting referendum, nullifying its legal efficacy.[67]

Round Two: Redistricting to Eliminate Majority-Minority Districts

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s April 29, 2026, Callais decision, four red Southern states quickly enacted new maps redrawing majority-minority districts to make them more favorable for Republican candidates. Other states have indicated they will do the same before the 2028 elections. Over time, the case could result in flipping up to 19 seats currently represented by Democrats.[68]

Florida was the first state to act. Just a few hours after the Supreme Court issued its decision, the state’s Republican-controlled legislature approved a new map proposed by Governor Ron DeSantis (R) two days earlier, aiming to flip four House districts represented by Democrats, including one majority-minority district.[69] The Governor signed the map into law on May 4, 2026.

Democratic groups immediately filed a lawsuit in state court, arguing that the map violates the “Fair Districts” Amendment added to the state’s constitution by voter referendum in 2010 to prevent partisan gerrymandering and protect minority voting rights. Before the parties fully framed the issues, the trial court ruled against the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction to temporarily bar use of the new map, explaining that the limited evidentiary record could not support the requested relief.[70] On June 10, the Florida Supreme Court declined to rule on an appeal of that decision, noting it will not have jurisdiction over the case until the lower court issues a final decision.[71] Florida law required U.S. House candidates to file paperwork to appear on the ballot by June 12.[72] So, the litigation will continue, but the new map will be used in the upcoming midterms.

Some have speculated that the new map could backfire on Republicans if Hispanic voters fail to support GOP candidates to the same degree they supported President Trump in 2024. GOP leaders hope that the newly drawn districts will, at a minimum, pay dividends in 2028.

Louisiana: Louisiana’s congressional district map was the subject of the Callais case. The day after the Supreme Court entered its judgment and remanded the case, the trial court renewed its prior injunction prohibiting use of the map now deemed unconstitutional,[73] and Governor Jeff Landry (R) issued an executive order suspending U.S. House primary elections previously scheduled for May 16.[74] The plaintiffs asked the court to stay the injunction through the end of the 2026 election cycle, but the court denied that motion on May 15.[75]

On May 28, the state enacted a new congressional map that eliminated one of two majority-minority districts currently represented by a Democrat, redrawing it to favor Republican candidates.[76] Litigation to decide whether the new map complies with the Court’s holding in Callais will proceed, but the state will use the new map in the upcoming elections. The state will conduct the November 3 election as a jungle primary, meaning voters will choose among all candidates in each district, and if no candidate in a district secures more than 50 percent of the vote, then the two candidates with the largest vote totals will advance to a runoff election on December 12, 2026.

Alabama: Alabama voters and its legislature have spent years fighting over congressional maps drawn after the 2020 census. That litigation continues. But following its decision in Callais, the Supreme Court issued a shadow docket ruling that effectively required the state to abandon a court-ordered map that included two majority-minority districts in favor of a version drawn by the state’s legislature that includes just one.

Litigation challenging Alabama’s district map under Section 2 of the VRA resulted in the creation of the state’s first majority-minority district in 1992. Following the 2020 census, a group of voters sued the state, arguing that population growth rendered that map malapportioned and racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.[77] The state subsequently adopted a new map (the 2021 map), but it also included just one majority-minority district. Three separate groups of Alabama voters challenged the new map, alleging it violated Section 2 and/or the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge judicial panel preliminarily enjoined use of the 2021 map and ordered the state to draw a remedial map including either two majority-Black districts or an additional district that offered Black voters an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice.[78] On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the panel’s injunction and granted certiorari before judgment.[79] The state used the 2021 map for the 2022 midterm elections.

The Supreme Court issued its opinion in the appealed case in June 2023, affirming the judicial panel’s injunction based on its determination that the plaintiffs were reasonably likely to prevail on their Section 2 claim.[80]

In response, the legislature passed another map in 2023 (the 2023 map) that also included just one majority-minority district. The judicial panel enjoined the state from using the 2023 map and appointed a Special Master to prepare a remedial map.[81] Following an unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court, the panel ordered the state to administer the 2024 elections using a map drawn by the Special Master that included two majority-minority districts.[82]

In May 2025, the judicial panel ruled that the legislature intentionally drew the 2023 map to dilute the Black vote in violation of Section 2 of the VRA and the Fourteenth Amendment and permanently enjoined its use.[83] The U.S. Supreme Court vacated that decision one year later and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its new interpretation of Section 2 in Callais.[84] Fifteen days later, the judicial panel entered another injunction, again based on its conclusion that the 2023 map resulted from intentional race-based discrimination in violation of the U.S. Constitution.”[85] The state appealed again, and a week later the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision staying the injunction based on its finding that the state was reasonably likely to succeed on the merits.[86] That decision effectively reversed the Court’s opinion issued in the same case in June 2023.

The state therefore will conduct the upcoming elections using the 2023 map that eliminates one majority-minority congressional district and redraws it to be more favorable to Republicans.[87] Governor Kay Ivey (R) reopened the qualifying deadline for four of the state’s seven districts whose boundary lines were altered by the 2023 map, and the state will hold a special primary election for those House seats on August 11. The remaining three districts that did not change under the 2023 map held their primary elections on May 19.

Tennessee: On May 1, 2026, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee (R) announced he would convene a special legislative session to formally review the state’s congressional map. One week later, the legislature adopted a new map eliminating the only majority-minority district, currently represented by the only Democrat serving in the state’s congressional delegation, making it likely that Republicans will pick up the new district seat in the midterm elections.[88] Five separate cases filed in state and federal courts challenged the new map under a variety of legal theories and requested different types of relief.[89] The Davidson County Chancery Court dismissed one of those cases,[90] and the plaintiffs in one of the federal cases voluntarily dismissed their claims.[91] The judicial panel hearing the remaining three cases denied the plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin use of the disputed map in the midterm elections in one case, and it is likely to do the same in the remaining two case.[92]

Looking Ahead

Partisan gerrymandering increased following the 2010 and 2020 censuses, a trend that likely will continue into the next election cycle because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Callais. Such gerrymandering has reduced the number of competitive House races and skewed the House map towards Republicans. In the 2018 midterm election cycle, a nonpartisan election handicapper rated 30 House seats as tossups.[93] In 2022, the same entity rated 36 House seats as tossups.[94] As of August 10 this year, that total has reduced to 19.[95] More broadly, the same election handicapper recently ranked the median House seat as R+3, reflecting a two-point shift favoring Republicans as compared to last year.[96]

Gerrymandering does not always produce perfect results. Republican redistricting efforts outlined above targeted 14 seats held by Democrats.[97] But only 11 of those seats are now rated solid, lean, or likely Republican.[98] Conversely, of the six Republican seats targeted by Democrats,[99] only five are now rated solid, lean, or likely Democratic.[100]

Looking more closely at the potential for a shift in control of the House, 15 of the seats ranked by the referenced election handicapper as tossups are currently held by Republicans, and four by Democrats.[101] If Democrats win all races currently rated by one election forecaster as solid, likely, or lean Democratic (205 seats),[102] they will also have to win 60 percent of the tossup seats currently represented by Republicans to achieve a one-seat majority in the next Congress.[103]

In the bigger picture, gerrymandering has a real impact on the winning party’s ability to govern. As districts become more solidly partisan, wave elections become far less likely, and very narrow congressional majorities could become the norm. On top of that, primary elections, typically decided by each party’s base, become increasingly determinative, incentivizing candidates to take more extreme partisan positions to ward off challengers from the fringe of their own party. Ultimately, the electorate could suffer the worst losses.

Summary Chart[104]

Congressional District	Election Rating 2/6/25	Election Rating 8/10/26
ALABAMA
AL-02 – incumbent, Shomari Figures (D) General election candidates: Shomari Figures (D), Rhett Marques (R)	Solid D	Likely R
CALIFORNIA
CA-01 – incumbent, James Gallagher (R) General election candidates: James Gallagher (R), Mike McGuire (D)	Solid R	Solid D
CA-03 – incumbent, Kevin Kiley (R) General Election Candidates: Ami Bera (D), Robb Tucker (R)	Likely R	Solid D
CA-22 – incumbent David Valado (R) General election candidates: David Valado (R), Randy Villegas (D)	Lean R	Toss Up
CA-41 – incumbent, Ken Calvert (R) General election candidates: Linda Sanchez (D), Mitch Clemmons (R)	Lean R	Solid D
CA-48 – incumbent, Darrell Issa (R) General election candidates: Jim Desmond (R). Marni Von Wilpert (D)	Solid R	Lean D
FLORIDA *Primary elections scheduled 8/18/26
FL-09 – incumbent, Darren Soto (D)	Solid D	Likely R
FL-14 – incumbent, Kathy Castor (D)	Solid D	Lean R
FL-22 – incumbent, Lois Frankel (D)	Solid D	Lean R
FL-25 – incumbent, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D)	Solid D	Toss Up
LOUISIANA
LA-06 – incumbent, Cleo Fields (D) Nov 3 jungle primary candidates (general election scheduled 12/12/26): Monique Appeaning (R), Larry Davis (R), Rick Edmonds (R), Michael Mebreur (R), Blake Miguez (R), Stephen Wagley (R), Chauna Banks (D), Patrick Forbes (D), Lindsay Garcia (D), Rufus Craig (L)	Solid D	Solid R
MISSOURI
MO-05 – incumbent, Emanuel Cleaver (D) General election candidates: Emanuel Cleaver (D), Rick Brattin (R)	Solid D	Solid R
NORTH CAROLINA
NC-01 – incumbent, Don Davis (D) General election candidates: Don Davis (D), Laurie Buckhout (R)	Toss Up	Lean R
OHIO
OH-01 – incumbent, Greg Landsman (D) General election candidates: Greg Landsman (D), Eric Conroy (R), John Hancock (L)	Likely D	Lean D
OH-09 – incumbent, Marcy Kaptur (D) General election candidates: Marcy Kaptur (D), Derek Merrin (R)	Toss Up	Toss Up
TENNESSEE
TN-09 – incumbent, Steve Cohen (D) General election candidates: Justin Pearson (D), Brent Taylor (R)	Solid D	Solid R
TEXAS
TX-09 – incumbent, Al Green (D) General election candidates: Alex Mealer (R), Leticia Gutierrez (D)	Solid D	Solid R
TX-28 – incumbent, Henry Cuellar (D) General election candidates: Henry Cuellar (D), Tano Tijerina (R)	Lean D	Lean D
TX-32 – incumbent, Julie Johnson (D) General election candidates: Jace Yarbrough (R), Dan Barrios (D)	Solid D	Solid R
TX-34 – incumbent, Vicente Gonzalez (D) General election candidates: Vicente Gonzalez (D), Eric Flores (R)	Toss Up	Toss Up
TX-35 – incumbent, Greg Casar (D) General election candidates: Carlos De La Cruz (R), Johnny Garcia (D)	Solid D	Likely R
UTAH
UT-01 – incumbent, Blake Moore (R) General election candidates: Ben McAdams (D), Riley Owen (R), Jesse West (L), Elias Montgomery (unaffiliated)	Solid R	Solid D
TOTALS BY RANKING	3 Solid R 1 Likely R 2 Lean R 3 Toss Up 1 Lean D 1 Likely D 11 Solid D R column: 6 Toss Up: 3 D column: 13	5 Solid R 3 Likely R 3 Lean R 4 Toss Up 3 Lean D 0 likely D 4 Solid D R column: 11 Toss Up: 4 D column: 7

---

Endnotes:

[1] 2018 House Election Results, 270toWin, https://www.270towin.com/2018-house-election/2018-actual-results.

[2] See Road Map to Redistricting 2021-2022, Cook Pol. Rep. with Amy Walter,

https://www.cookpolitical.com/redistricting/2022.

[3] See “Looking Ahead,” supra.

[4] See Looking Ahead, supra.

[5] See 2026 Generic Congressional Vote, RealClearPolling, https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/state-of-the-union/generic-congressional-vote (last visited July 23, 2026).

[6] Between 1970 and 2024, only one state – Texas in 2003 –voluntarily redrew its congressional map as part of mid-decade redistricting intended to advantage one party. Drew Desilver, Redistricting Between Censuses has been Rare in the Modern Era, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Aug. 28, 2025), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/08/28/redistricting-between-censuses-has-been-rare-in-the-modern-era/.

[7] See U.S. Const., Art. I, § 4 (giving state legislatures the initial power to draw federal election districts but authorizing Congress to “make or alter” those districts); League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 404 (2006) (“Neither the Constitution nor Congress has stated any explicit prohibition of mid-decade redistricting to change districts drawn earlier in conformance with a decennial census”).

[8] See Mid-Decade Redistricting, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures (May 08, 2026), https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/mid-decade-redistricting.

[9] Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684, 718 (2019).

[10] See Redistricting Commissions, Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_commissions.

[11] See, e.g., Yurij Rudensky, Status of Partisan Gerrymandering Litigation in State Courts, State Ct. Rep. (July 11, 2024), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/status-partisan-gerrymandering-litigation-state-courts?_gl=1%2A1167ymx%2A_gcl_au%2AMTg1NjI5NTg5Mi4xNzgwNDMyOTAx.

[12] See Status of Partisan Gerrymandering Claims Across the Country, State Democracy Research Initiative, U. Wisc. L. School (last updated 12/25/25), https://statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/our-work/status-of-partisan-gerrymandering-claims-across-the-country; Changing the Maps: Tracking Mid-Decade Redistricting, National Conference of State Legislatures (last updated Jul 14, 2026), https://www.ncsl.org/redistricting-and-census/changing-the-maps-tracking-mid-decade-redistricting.

[13] See U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1.

[14] Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 631 (1993) (citing Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U.S. 267, 277–78 (1986) (plurality opinion)).

[15] Shaw at 631 (citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)).

[16] See Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 959 (1996) (citing Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 916 (1995)).

[17] See Alexander v. S.C. State Conf. of the NAACP, 602 U.S. 1, 10 (2024) (citing Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. 579, 610–12 (2018)).

[18] Travis Crum, The Unabridged Fifteenth Amendment, 133 Yale L.J. 1039, 1045–46 (Feb. 29, 2024).

[19] U.S. Const., amend. XV, §§ 1, 2.

[20] See Brnovich v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 594 U.S. 647, 655-56 (2021).

[21] 52 U.S.C. § 10301, 10503. Congress amended Section 2 in 1982 in response to the Supreme Court’s opinion in City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 61–65 (1980), which held that the original statutory text and the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited states from acting with “racially discriminatory motivation” or an “invidious purpose” to discriminate, but it did not prohibit laws that are discriminatory only in effect.

[22] 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b).

[23] Id.

[24] Wis. Leg. v. Wis. Elec. Comm’n, 595 U.S. 398, 402 (2022) (citing Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 46–51, 79 (1986)); Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1, 18 (2023) (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45–46, 50-51, 79).

[25] Louisiana v. Callais, 146 S. Ct. 1131, 1143, judgment entered, 146 S. Ct. 1111 (2026).

[26] Id.

[27] Id. at 1152-56. In considering this question, the Court began by noting that it has identified just two compelling interests that can survive such strict scrutiny review: (1) “remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute” and (2) “avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons.” Id. at 1152-53 (citing Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181, 207 (2023)). The first interest rises to the level of a compelling interest only if the government satisfies two conditions: it must identify the specific instances of past of past discrimination and the precise injury it is trying to remedy; and it must demonstrate that its remedial action is necessary. Id.

[28] Id. at 1156-57.

[29] Id. at 1156, 1162.

[30] Id. at 1156-57.

[31] Id.

[32] Id. at 1157-59. The Court observed that the entrenched racial discrimination that originally animated the framework has substantially diminished, and that the emergence of the current two-party system has made race and partisan preference closely correlated. Id.  at 1157-59. Because of that correlation, evidence of racially polarized voting may reflect nothing more than ordinary partisan division – a possibility that the Court calibrated the updated Gingles framework to ward against. See id. at 1158 (quoting Alexander, 602 U.S. at 21) (“[I]n a State where both parties have substantial support and where race is often correlated with party preference, a litigant can easily exploit § 2 for partisan purposes by ‘repackag[ing] a partisan-gerrymandering claim as a racial-gerrymandering claim.’”); see also id. at 1161 (“Failing to account for political considerations in redistricting . . . can allow plaintiffs to undo a State’s legitimate, nonracial decisions under the banner of § 2.”); id. at 1163 (“If race and politics are not disentangled and a §2 claim is cynically used as a tool for advancing a partisan end, the VRA’s noble goal will be perverted.”).

[33] Id. at 1159.

[34] Id. at 1159–60.

[35] Id. at 1160.

[36] See, e.g., Alicia Bannon, The Aftermath of Callais, State Ct. Rep. (May 7, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/aftermath-callais.

[37] The targeted districts are represented by Reps. Al Green (D-TX-09), Henry Cuellar (D-TX-28) Julie Johnson (D-TX-32), Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX-34), and Greg Casar (D-TX-35).

[38] See Eleanor Klibanoff, Abbott, Republican Lawmakers’ Comments Cited in Court Order Overturning Texas’ Congressional Gerrymander, Tex. Trib. (Nov. 21, 2025), https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/21/texas-redistricting-map-overturned-abbott-gop-lawmaker-comments/.

[39] Federal lawsuits relating to voting rights are initially heard by a judicial panel comprised of two district judges and one circuit court judge; the panel’s decision is appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2284(a), 1253.

[40] League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Abbott, 809 F. Supp. 3d 502, 514 (W.D. Tex. 2025), rev'd sub nom. Abbott v. LULAC, 224 L. Ed. 2d 525 (Apr. 27, 2026). The ruling also rejected the Department of Justice’s interpretation of the law relating to coalition districts. Id. at 517.

[41] Abbott v. League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 223 L. Ed. 2d 239 (Nov. 21, 2025).

[42] Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, 2026 WL 1127246 (U.S. Tex., 2026).

[43] Democrat Taylor Rehmet flipped an historically Republican district in a state Senate special election. Rehmet won the race by a 14-point margin and despite being far outspent by his Republican opponent. President Trump won that district by 17 points in 2024. See John Hanna & Julie Carr Smyth, Texas Stunner: Democrat Taylor Rehmet Flips Republican State Senate District Trump Won by 17 Points, AP News (Feb. 1, 2026), https://apnews.com/article/texas-state-senate-democrat-taylor-rehmet-c8cb6685c49696b8a607a8f93111ae2e.

[44] Targeted districts include one previously represented by Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-01), who died last year and was replaced in an August 4 special election by Republican James Gallagher. The other targeted districts are currently represented by Reps. Kevin Kiley (R-CA-03) (who subsequently changed his party affiliation to Independent but continues to conference with Republicans), David Valadao (R-CA-22), Ken Calvert (R-CA-41), and Darrell Issa (R-CA-48).

[45] Tangipa v. Newsom, 816 F. Supp. 3d 1081, 1138 (C.D. Cal. 2026).

[46] Tangipa v. Newsom, 146 S. Ct. 1594 (2026).

[47] The targeted district is currently represented by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO-05).

[48] Luther v. Hoskins, 730 S.W.3d 567 (Mo. 2026).

[49] Healey v. State, 732 S.W.3d 827 (Mo. 2026).

[50] Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Colored People Missouri State Conference v. Kehoe, 734 S.W.3d 338 (Mo. 2026).

[51] Maggard v. State, 733 S.W.3d 411 (Mo. 2026).

[52] See Bill Kramer, Ballot Measure Delays Become New Tool Against Direct Democracy (Looking at Missouri’s New Districts), Multistate (May 21, 2026), https://www.multistate.us/insider/2026/5/21/state-ballot-measure-delays-become-new-tool-against-direct-democracy-looking-at-missouris-new-districts.

[53] See id.

[54] Currently represented by Rep. Don Davis (D-NC-01).

[55] Williams v. Representative Destin Hall, 2025 WL 3296273 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 26, 2025).

[56] The targeted districts are currently represented by Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH-01) and Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-09).

[57] See League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, No. 220901712, 2025 WL 2644292 (Utah Dist. Ct. Aug. 25, 2025). The seat is currently held by Rep. Blake Moore (R-UT-01).

[58] League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, No. 20260019, at *6 (Utah Feb. 20, 2026) (order).

[59] Id. at *3.

[60] Gardner v. Henderson, No. 2:26-CV-00084-RJS-JCB, 2026 WL 496448 (D. Utah Feb. 23, 2026).

[61] See Gardner v. Henderson, No. 2:26-cv-00084-RJS-JCB (D. Utah July 8, 2026).

[62] Scott v. McDougle, 930 S.E.2d 332, 348–49 (Va. 2026).

[63] VA Const., Art. II, Sec. 6-A(a).

[64] VA Code § 30-19 (2026).

[65] Scott, 903 S.E.2d at 340.

[66] Id. at 340–41.

[67] Id. at 334.

[68] See Alex J. Rouhandeh, Democrats Could Lose These Districts if SCOTUS Curtails Voting Rights Act, Newsweek (Oct. 15, 2025), https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-could-lose-these-districts-if-scotus-curtails-voting-rights-act-10879309.

[69] Targeted seats are currently represented by Reps. Darren Soto (D-FL-09), Cathy Castor (D-FL-14), Lois Frankel (D-FL-22), and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL-25). The new map also places another Democratic incumbent, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL-23), in a new district.

[70] Equal Ground Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Byrd, No. 2026 CA 914 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2d Jud. Cir. May 26, 2026). 

[71] Equal Ground Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of State, No. SC2026-0857, 2026 WL 1678540 at * (Fla. June 10, 2026).

[72] Id. at *4 (Labarga, J., dissenting).

[73] See State’s Opp’n to Robinson & Galmon Intervenors’ Jt. Mot. for a Stay at 1, Callais v. Landry, No. 3:24-cv-00122 (W.D. La. May 15, 2026), ECF No. 284 (quoting ECF No. 261) (“The very next day, this Court renewed its prior injunction ‘prohibiting the State of Louisiana from using SB8's map of congressional districts for any election.’”).

[74] La. Exec. Order No. JML 26-038 (Apr. 30, 2026). The Senate primary was held on May 16, as originally scheduled.

[75] State’s Opp’n to Robinson & Galmon Intervenors’ Jt. Mot. for a Stay, supra note 78, at 1.

[76] The redrawn district is currently represented by Rep. Cleo Fields (D-LA-06).

[77] Compl. at ¶¶ 46–47, Singleton v. Merrill, No. 2:21-cv-01291 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 27, 2021).

[78] Singleton v. Merrill, No. 2:21-cv-1291-AMM, Doc. 107 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 2022).

[79] Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879 (2022).

[80] Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1, 17, 23-24 (2023).

[81] See Singleton v. Allen, No. 2:21-cv-1291-AMM, Doc. 272 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 5, 2023).

[82] Singleton v. Allen, No. 2:21-cv-1291-AMM, Doc. 311 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 5, 2023).

[83] Singleton v. Allen, 782 F. Supp. 3d 1092, 1356–57 (N.D. Ala. 2025), judgment entered sub nom. Milligan v. Allen, No. 2:21-CV-01530-AMM, 2025 WL 2451498 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2025), and vacated and remanded sub nom. Allen v. Caster, 146 S. Ct. 1196 (2026).

[84] Allen v. Caster, 146 S. Ct. 1196 (2026).

[85] Singleton v. Allen, No. 2:21-CV-1291-AMM, 2026 WL 1469518, at *32 (N.D. Ala. May 26, 2026), adopted sub nom. Caster v. Allen, No. 2:21-CV-1536-AMM, 2026 WL 1487869 (N.D. Ala. May 26, 2026).

[86] Allen v. Milligan, 146 S. Ct. 1377, 1381 (2026).

[87] Rep. Shomari Figures (D-AL-02) represents the majority-minority district eliminated by the new map.

[88] Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN-09) represents the targeted district. He announced that he will not run for reelection.

[89]Compl, NAACP Tenn. State Conf. v. Tennessee, No. 26-0591-II (Tenn. Ch. Ct. filed May 7, 2026); Compl., Hale v. Lee, No. 3:26-cv-00603 (M.D. Tenn. filed May 7, 2026); Compl., Moses v. Lee, No.3:26-cv-00694 (W.D. Tenn filed May 8, 2026); Compl., Sherman v. Hargett, No. 3:26-cv-00616 (M.D. Tenn. filed May 11, 2026); Compl., Tenn. State Conference of the NAACP v. Hargett, No. 3:26-cv-00638 (M.D. Tenn. May 13, 2026).

[90] Final Order, NAACP v. Tennessee, No. 26-0591-II (Tenn. Ch. Ct. filed May 26, 2026).

[91] Order, Hale, No. 3:26-cv-00603 (M.D. Tenn filed June 9, 2026).

[92] See Order and Op., Sherman, No. 3:26-cv-00616 (M.D. Tenn. Filed July 23, 2026).

[93] Cook Political Report 2018 House Ratings, 270toWin (Nov. 19, 2018), https://www.cookpolitical.com/sites/default/files/2018-11/House%20Ratings%20Final.pdf.

[94] Cook Political Report 2022 House Ratings, 270toWin (Nov. 7, 2022), https://www.270towin.com/2022-house-election/cook-political-2022-house-ratings.

[95] 2026 CPR House Race Ratings, Cook Pol. Rpt. With Amy Walter (Aug. 10, 2026), https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/house-race-ratings.

[96] Re-Redistricting Yields a More Republican, Less Elastic House Map, Cook Pol. Rep. with Amy Walter (July 29, 2026, https://www.cookpolitical.com/cook-pvi/introducing-2026-cook-pvi-re-redistricting-yields-more-republican-less-elastic-house-map?check_logged_in=1.

[97] Those targeted seats are located in Alabama (one seat), Florida (four seats), Louisiana (one seat), Missouri (one seat), North Carolina (one seat), Tennessee (one seat), and Texas (five seats) (based on rankings as of 8/12/26).

[98] 2026 CPR House Race Ratings, Cook Pol. Rpt. With Amy Walter (Aug. 10, 2026), https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/house-race-ratings. The list includes the following districts: Alabama-02; Florida-09; Florida-14; Florida-22; Louisiana-06; Missouri-05; North Carolina-01; Tennessee-09; Texas-09; Texas-32; and Texas-35 (based on rankings as of 8/12/26).

[99] Those targeted seats are located in California (five seats), and Utah (one seat). Ohio’s redistricting is not included in this calculus since the map was redrawn by a bipartisan redistricting commission (based on rankings as of 8/12/26).

[100] 2026 CPR House Race Ratings, Cook Pol. Rpt. With Amy Walter (Aug. 10, 2026), https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/house-race-ratings. The list includes the following districts: California-01; California-03; California-41; California-48; and Utah-0.

[101] 2026 CPR House Ratings, Cook Pol. Rpt. With Amy Walter (Aug. 10, 2026).

[102] See id.

[103] See id.

[104] All ratings based on Cook Political Report.