WASHINGTON, D.C. — A political fight usually reserved for once every decade is now unfolding when it typically should not.
Across the country, state lawmakers are redrawing congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, touching off what some analysts call a nationwide redistricting arms race.
Congressional district lines are typically redrawn every 10 years after the U.S. census. The goal is simple: Make sure each member of Congress represents roughly the same number of people, but the politics behind those maps are anything but simple.
“Every ten years we have redistricting because there’s a cap of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and because some states are growing faster than others, some states are actually declining. And even within states, you have different population centers growing at different rates. You need to redraw the lines so that each representative has roughly the same number of people that they’re representing,” said Dr. Todd Belt, professor and director of The George Washington University Political Management Master’s Program.
Belt explains that controversy over redrawing maps typically begins when the party in power uses that process to gain a political advantage.
“Because this power is left up to the state legislatures, they can decide that they want to do this in a way that benefits whichever is the majority party holding that state legislature at the time. And so that’s where we get into this issue called ‘gerrymandering,'” he said. “Today, you don’t want to draw really safe districts because that would dilute your voting power. What you want to do is give yourself a slight edge in as many districts as possible in order to maximize the number of seats that you can get.”
Gerrymandering has existed for centuries, but Belt says the strategy has evolved, becoming far more political. In recent decades, several states have turned mapmaking over to independent commissions to reduce political influence over the process.
“When you look at states that have the independent commissions, you generally have fair districts that are more likely to represent the outcome of the elections,” said Belt.
Oftentimes, state courts are asked to decide whether maps follow state laws and constitutions. This sometimes results in mid-decade redistricting.
“Courts get involved because either the state constitution or state laws may prohibit different ways that people have drawn the districts. The maps have to comport with state law and state constitutions. That’s why you see state supreme courts sometimes jump in to strike down those maps,” Belt said. “New York redistricted and then it had its district maps invalidated by its state supreme court, and they had to be redrawn again. And it is possible that there will be a third redrawing, but it will not affect 2026. It will affect the 2028 elections.”
But this year, the landscape changed dramatically. Instead of waiting for the next census, multiple states engaged in a rare mid-decade redistricting arms race that first started in Texas last year. The end goal: Control of a narrowly divided U.S. House of Representatives.
“Donald Trump knew that his party was likely to lose seats in the House of Representatives, which is very closely divided by only a handful of seats. And when the president’s voter approval is below 50%, usually it’s double digit losses in the House,” said Belt. “And because of that, Donald Trump was trying to change some of the rules so there would be fewer seats lost or maybe even some seats gained. So that’s why he put pressure on Texas.”
The response was immediate.
“In politics, there is no action without a reaction,” said Belt.
“Republicans started this redistricting war, and Democrats have made clear we’re going to finish it,” said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., in February.
In the fall, California passed a ballot measure to scrap its independent redistricting commission — just for the 2026 midterms — in order to redraw their map to offset the GOP gains in Texas. Several other states weighed similar action.
In late April, Virginia voters had approved a Democrat-friendly map, but it was blocked in May by the state’s Supreme Court. The map was expected to boost Democrats in a handful of races, but was ultimately shot down. Days after Virginia approved the map, the U.S. Supreme Court changed how voting rights challenges can be brought, essentially eliminating majority-minority congressional districts and opening the door to new district maps in several Southern states.
“The majority-minority districts were originally put in place so that black voters could have the ability to elect a black representative to represent them,” said Belt.
“All the Republicans in the South have been waiting on was for this decision. And what we have now, obviously, is an execution of what they’ve wanted to do all along,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., shortly after the SCOTUS decision.
Many lawmakers, including New York Congressman Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y., would like to see redistricting carried out only when it’s supposed to be.
“I think redistricting needs to be once every decade. This process is played out in a super political way around the country,” said Langworthy.
Although President Donald Trump and Republicans are largely responsible for igniting the current redistricting arms race, Langworthy noted that Democrats have done the same — albeit on a smaller scale — in previous years, especially in his home state.
“Democrats in Albany and here in Washington from New York lose sight of the fact that we’ve already had a gerrymander that’s led to them taking two seats in the last election,” said Langworthy. “They’re hypocrites when they say that anything they do in the future is in reaction to what’s going on around the country. … They did that partisan redistricting, when the courts put fair maps on the table, that we ran on, that were very representative of the population in New York.”
