The ongoing congressional redistricting battles, which are ramping up ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, have seen significant developments driven by partisan efforts from both Republicans and Democrats.
Today, Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe signed House Bill 1 into law, enacting the “Missouri First Map”—a redrawn congressional district plan for the 2026 midterm elections. This could shift Missouri’s eight congressional seats from the current 6-2 Republican-Democrat split to a 7-1 Republican advantage.
Missouri’s Republican supermajorities in the legislature made passage straightforward, but the fight is not over. The DNC is fighting it, arguing they can stop it via a veto referendum—requiring signatures by early December to put it to a statewide vote, or through ongoing lawsuits alleging constitutional violations and gerrymandering.
In Missouri, laws without an emergency clause take effect 90 days after legislative session ends, which is December 27, 2025. The bill lacks an emergency clause, allowing time for a potential referendum petition with about 106,000 signatures to pause it until voters decide.
If Missouri’s new congressional seat holds, Republicans would own a majority 220-212, advantage over Democrats (with 3 vacancies) in the House. More Redistricting changes could significantly impact the 2026 elections, with Republicans seeking to widen their lead.
Republicans are leveraging control in red states to target Democratic seats, and Democrats are working in blue-controlled states to counter with their own potential map changes. These efforts are highly unusual, as redistricting typically occurs once every decade after the census; however, political pressure, legal loopholes, and court rulings have enabled them.
The stakes are incredibly high as Republicans need an advantage to implement their MAGA policies and agenda further. Democrats want an advantage so they can focus their efforts on impeaching Trump (if they can’t kill him first).
Both parties are actively engaging in “gerrymandering” to secure new House seats, with Texas and California also leading the charge. This has sparked a “redistricting arms race,” with other states following suit.
Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing political or electoral districts to favor an incumbent party's chances of remaining in power.
Republicans have an excellent opportunity for more gains simply because Democrats have enjoyed a massive gerrymandering advantage for decades, and there is little room for Dem improvement. With potential newly drawn Republican-favoring maps, one could realistically expect a net gain of potentially five or more Congressional seats by 2028.
In Texas, Republicans have approved new congressional maps in a mid-decade redistricting effort, a rare move typically reserved for post-census cycles. The maps, signed into law by Governor Abbott, aim to flip five Democratic-leaning seats to favor Republicans, potentially shifting the state’s congressional balance from 25-13 (Republican-Democrat) to 30-8 in favor of the GOP.
In California, Governor Newsom and CA Dems have been planning a diabolical ploy for many months. Currently, it is 43 Democrats to 9 Republicans. The plan aims to shift 5 Republican-held House seats to favor Democrats, 48 to only 4 Republicans, for the 2026 midterms.
However, unlike Texas, CA redistricting requires voter approval on Nov 4, 2025, to overturn an established popular “Independent Commission” citizen initiative from 2010, which overwhelmingly passed 61.23% to 38.77%.
Republican CA Governor Candidate Steve Hilton filed a federal lawsuit on Sept 4, 2025, arguing that Newsom’s redistricting plan violates the CA State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. He says the plan, which requires voter approval via Prop-50 on Nov 4, 2025, undermines the “one person, one vote” principle by disproportionately favoring Dem votes. Hilton’s lawsuit cites 2024 election data, stating that Dem votes would be worth 8 times more than GOP votes (48 Dem seats at ~193,000 votes per seat vs. 4 Republican seats at ~1.52 million votes per seat).
Democrat governors in Illinois, New York, and Maryland (and a RINO Governor in Utah) have threatened to allow new maps to limit Republican gains. However, already very gerrymandered districts provide little room for Dem improvement.
Also, legal, constitutional, and legislative barriers in some states limit their ability to act swiftly. Historically, mid-decade redistricting has faced scrutiny from the public and political parties for allegedly undermining voter representation.
Here are some potential Democrat scenario redistricting gains:
STATE / POSSIBLE GAIN CURRENT POTENTIAL
California (D+5) 43-9 48-4
New York (D+3) 14-11 17-8
Illinois (D+1) 14-3 15-2
New Jersey (D+1) 9-3 10-2
Maryland (D+1) 7-1 8-0
Utah (D+1) 4-0 3-1
Here are some potential Republican scenario redistricting gains:
STATE / POSSIBLE GAIN CURRENT POTENTIAL
Texas (R+5) 25 -13 30-8
Ohio (R+3) 10-5 13-2
Florida (R+3) 20-8 23-5
Missouri (R+1) PENDING CHANGE 6-2 7-1
Indiana (R+1) 7-2 8-1
North Carolina (R+1) 10-4 11-3
Kansas (R+1) 3-1 4-0
Nebraska (R+1) 2-1 3-0
After Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Florida, and Indiana are the furthest along. Redistricting attempts and moves are fluid, and it is a high-stakes game that will not end over several more election cycles. Republicans, with more states under their control, have a structural advantage in gerrymandering, but voter sentiment and legal challenges will play critical roles.
Potential Scenarios:
Most Likely for 2025/26: Missouri, Texas, California, Ohio, and Utah have the highest probability due to signed maps (MO, TX), imminent votes (CA, UT), or mandated deadlines (OH).
More likely for 2028: Florida and Indiana (lack 2025 special sessions). NC depends on unpredictable court outcomes. Illinois/Maryland/NY/NJ face commissions or deadlines.
Context: Republicans hold Trifectas (full control of the governorship and both legislative chambers) in 23 states, compared to Democrats’ 15 trifectas, with 12 states under divided government. This gives Republicans an advantage in pursuing mid-decade congressional redistricting, as they control the process in more states where maps can be redrawn to target D-held seats.
Why Trifectas Matter for Redistricting:
Control: In trifecta states, a single party can enact maps without veto threats or bipartisan negotiation, enabling aggressive gerrymandering. Republicans’ 23 trifectas (e.g., Texas, Florida, Ohio) allow them to pursue gains in ~200 House seats, while Democrats’ 15 (e.g., California, Illinois) limit counters to ~150 seats.
Historical Context: Post-2024 elections, Republicans gained a net +50 state legislators, solidifying their edge (55.5% of all state seats).
Timeline: TX/MO done; CA vote November 4; UT/OH by late 2025. Others unlikely before 2026 filings, pushing to 2028 (e.g., NY).
OF NOTE: A significant SCOTUS court battle is underway. The case, Louisiana v. Callais, stems from LA redistricting efforts to comply with Voting Rights Act requirements. LA argues that such “race-based redistricting” (based on skin color) is unconstitutional because it “violates fundamental equal protection principles.”
If SCOTUS rules in favor, effectively abolishing or severely limiting race-based districts, it could trigger widespread redistricting, adversely affecting Democrat-leaning areas. These Democrat-favored, racially drawn House districts have historically always favored Dems.
This one court case (being supported by the DOJ) could solidify Republican majorities in the U.S. House, as race-neutral maps could lead to significant long-term GOP gains.
As a result, Democrats could lose AN ADDITIONAL 20-25 House seats in the 2026 and 2028 elections and beyond, particularly in states like Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, where current VRA maps have boosted Democrats. A SCOTUS decision is expected by mid-2026.
The time, energy, and focus on redistricting, leading to new congressional maps, is a delicate balancing act. The upside is huge; however, potential collateral impacts may further erode trust in the electoral process, as both sides prioritize political advantage over fair representation.
Share This Post...
