Redistricting Roulette: GOP Gambles, Dems May Win
Texas, California, Virginia, and The Ripple Effects of Mid-Cycle Redistricting
“Unprecedented” and “outrageous” were the words most often heard in response to Texas Republicans’ attempted mid-cycle redraw of congressional maps to boost GOP odds of keeping control of the U.S. House after the midterms. Now, a federal district court has concluded that the legislature’s new plan is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander—placing the strategy in jeopardy and leaving Republicans wondering whether this power play was worth the trouble.
Reading Judge Jeffrey Brown’s opinion brought back memories of my time in the Virginia General Assembly, including my years as House Democratic leader. Brown, a Trump appointee, cited the Virginia case that overturned the Virginia GOP’s 2011 redistricting plan to underscore his conclusion that Texas Republicans relied on race in drawing their maps. The parallels between the two states are striking.
The Virginia Precedent
When Virginia Republicans drew the 2011 maps, they controlled the governorship and both legislative chambers—conditions like those in Texas today. Unlike Texas, however, Democrats in Virginia regularly won statewide races, including those for Governor and every presidential contest since 2008. Despite this statewide success, Republicans maintained large majorities in the Virginia House for years, aided by a partisan and racially discriminatory gerrymander. Much of this can be traced to the GOP’s national strategy after Barack Obama’s 2008 victory. Republicans invested heavily in winning state legislatures so they could shape congressional redistricting. And they succeeded. In Virginia, the 2011, 2013, and 2015 House elections were conducted using maps designed to entrench GOP control. In 2016, the GOP held a 66-34 majority in the Virginia House.
It took eight years of court battles and several separate lawsuits, but the 2011 Virginia maps were eventually found to be unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. With new maps ordered by the courts, Democrats gained a majority of the state’s Congressional seats, and won the majority in the House of Delegates in 2019.
The Virginia maps might have survived if they had been purely partisan gerrymanders. By the mid-2010s, Supreme Court watchers wondered whether the justices were preparing to abandon review of partisan redistricting altogether, and allow states free rein to design their own maps. In the 2019 case of Rucho v. Common Cause, they did just that; partisan gerrymanders would no longer be subject to federal court review.
But the 2011 Virginia plan was different. In hopes of satisfying the Voting Rights Act’s former preclearance requirements[1], Republicans packed Black voters into a small number of districts. This shored up African American incumbents but made surrounding districts whiter and more reliably Republican. All but one black House member voted for the map, a fact frequently cited by Republican defenders of the plan, which appeared to lock-in a GOP majority for a decade. But while the plan protected black incumbency, federal courts were unmoved. Protecting incumbents was one thing; using race as the predominant factor to shape districts was another. After years of litigation, the 2011 maps were struck down as unconstitutional.
The aftermath reshaped Virginia politics. When lawmakers failed to agree on new maps, the court imposed its own. In the 2017 elections, Democrats nearly erased the GOP majority—coming within one vote of a 50–50 split before losing a tied race in Newport News by a random drawing, as Virginia law requires. Two years later, Democrats won the House majority. Today, they hold 67 of 100 seats. [2]
Texas’s Self-Inflicted Wounds
Texas now finds itself in a similar bind—but unlike Virginia, the wounds are largely self-inflicted. In drawing their 2025 map, GOP legislators relied on a letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon[3] to Gov. Abbott and Attorney General Paxton that argued that the state needed to redraw its maps to remedy constitutional problems in the 2021 plan. Abbott endorsed the approach; it now threatens to unravel the GOP’s broader strategy.
Texas could have pursued a purely partisan gerrymander, which federal courts could have refused to review under Rucho. Instead, the Dhillon letter appeared to direct the state to use race to reconfigure districts—a move that helped open the door to federal constitutional scrutiny. Even lawyers in the Texas Attorney General’s office criticized the letter as “legally unsound,” “ham-fisted,” and “a mess.”
If Texas had conducted a pure partisan redistricting, the federal courts relying on the Rucho case may have dismissed the legal challenges. Instead, Texas admitted that it is used racial criteria to develop new maps, an approach that remains reviewable by the federal courts. And if the court throws out the new Texas maps, what will it do with the previous maps which the state and DOJ argue are constitutionally suspect?
Judge Brown seized on the Dhillon letter, concluding that the DOJ, by directing Texas to “separate its citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race,” pushed the state into unconstitutional racial line-drawing. He ruled that the state’s new maps cannot be used in the 2026 elections. Texas has appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and it is not clear how it will rule.[4] A decision will likely come quickly, as the state’s December 6 filing deadline is rapidly approaching.
If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling, the blow to GOP hopes of retaining the House would be severe. Texas would lose the opportunity to create five additional Republican seats. And blue states, most notably California and Virginia, have already begun exploring their own mid-cycle redraws that could add Democratic seats—- all because Trump and Texas tried to game the mid-terms!
Other States in Play
California was the first to respond to Texas’s gambit. Although its independent redistricting commission complicated matters, Democrats argued that if Texas abandoned the traditional rules, California couldn’t unilaterally disarm. Voters initially resisted, but after realizing the stakes, they approved Proposition 50 this fall by a wide margin. The action allows the California legislature Democrats to draw new maps. Unless they stand down, or courts block their action, they stand to gain five seats.
Virginia is poised to follow. It also has a constitutionally-mandated restricting commission, so a new constitutional amendment will require passage before action. This is difficult, if only because all amendments to the Virginia Constitution must be passed by two legislative sessions separated by an election. Virginia Democrats are attempting to thread a constitutional needle to provide this remedy, but if successful, the proposed amendment would permit the legislature to draw lines likely to create three new Democratic-leaning districts. New York, Illinois, and Maryland are examining potential mid-cycle moves, though most changes would not take effect until after the midterms.
And Republican states continue to confront obstacles. Missouri was first to embrace the Texas approach, and targeted one Democratic seat held by a prominent African American for elimination. But the efforts may founder if a petition drive succeeds in putting the issue on the ballot. Missourians have recently been successful in passing citizen ballot initiatives opposed by the conservative legislature. In 2024, voters approved a constitutional amendment creating a right to reproductive freedom in the state’s constitution and passed increases in the minimum wage.
Utah’s effort to gain another seat was blocked when a federal court ordered creation of a Democratic-leaning district in Salt Lake City. A decision in a lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s 2025 plan to dismantle a historically Black district is expected soon. Neither Kansas nor Indiana legislatures could muster the votes to attempt a mid-decade restricting; Hoosier legislators have been subject to threats and harassment as a result. Florida is considering new maps, but its constitution bans partisan redistricting, heightening the likelihood of a successful legal challenge.
A Strategic Miscalculation?
Whether Democrats are justified in “fighting fire with fire” remains a matter of debate. What is clear is that Texas’s decision to push the limits of mid-cycle redistricting has triggered a national chain reaction—one that may ultimately help Democrats more than Republicans. If the courts uphold the ruling against Texas, and if blue states capitalize on the opportunity, Democrats could gain the edge in the redistricting wars.
It would be an ironic twist: a GOP maneuver intended to secure long-term power may end up weakening the party’s grip on the U.S. House.
[1] Ironically, in 2013 case of Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court eliminated the previous requirements of the Voting Rights Act that required southern states to submit redistricting plans to DOJ for “preclearance” before they took effect. Had this occurred before the Virginia’s 2011 redistricting, Republicans would likely have adopted a plan that may have been interpreted as a “partisan” instead of “racial” gerrymander which could have more easily been defended.
[2] See Bellwether: Virginia’s Political Transformation, 2006-2020 (New York: Hamilton Books, 2022).
[3] Harmeet Dhillon is well known to Virginians as the AG who spearheaded DOJs attacks on the University of Virginia in spring, 2025 that ultimately led to the forced ouster of President Jim Ryan.
[4] The court’s decision is further complicated by the issues in a Louisiana case (Louisiana v. Callais) where federal courts initially ruled that the state needed to redraw its 2021 map to correct for black vote dilution by creating a majority-minority district. A group of white voters sued, arguing that all racially conscious redistricting is unconstitutional. Their victories in federal court led to an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule soon.