Texas has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the state to use its new Republican-leaning congressional map for the 2026 elections, setting off a major voting-rights showdown. Attorney General Ken Paxton argued that although the map was drawn to benefit Republicans politically, it was not the racial gerrymander a lower court claimed it to be. A three-judge federal panel ruled 2–1 that Texas acted with racial intent when it removed several majority-minority districts and replaced them with Republican-favored seats, ordering the state to revert to its older map. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith dissented sharply, calling the ruling the most blatant example of judicial activism he had ever seen. Justice Samuel Alito intervened Friday night, temporarily restoring the new map while the case proceeds.
Paxton told the Supreme Court that the justices should follow the Purcell Principle, which discourages changes to election rules close to voting. He frequently pointed to Judge Smith’s dissent as evidence that the lower court erred. Texas redrew the map after former President Donald Trump urged GOP-led states to shore up the party’s narrow House majority. Gov. Greg Abbott maintained the objective was partisan advantage, not discrimination, even as the Justice Department questioned whether some minority-heavy districts still met constitutional standards.
The dispute has national implications, as other states respond to Texas’ move with their own politically favorable maps. California Democrats passed a plan that could wipe out several GOP seats, while Missouri and North Carolina approved maps benefiting Republicans and Virginia shifted toward one favoring Democrats. If the Supreme Court ultimately blocks Texas’ new map, Democrats could gain the upper hand in the broader redistricting fight. The case also touches on long-running tensions between the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, offering an early preview of how the Court may approach future redistricting battles.