A recent federal court ruling striking down Texas’s gerrymandered congressional maps could significantly shift the balance of power in the U.S. House, potentially handing Democrats as many as five additional seats in the 2026 midterm elections.
The surprising outcome stems from a misstep by the Trump administration’s Justice Department, which inadvertently pressured Texas lawmakers into enacting a racially biased redistricting plan that now faces legal scrutiny. The case, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Abbott, hinges on the fact that Texas was encouraged to redraw district lines based on racial demographics—a move that now violates established constitutional standards.
The Unintentional Self-Sabotage
Initially, Texas Republicans were hesitant to engage in partisan gerrymandering. However, a July letter from the Justice Department demanded that the state redraw certain districts to alter their racial makeup. Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, noted that this demand was based on a flawed interpretation of a federal appeals court ruling and riddled with “factual, legal, and typographical errors.” Even Texas’s own Attorney General’s office deemed the DOJ’s letter “legally unsound” and “erroneous.”
The core issue is that the Supreme Court has consistently held that prioritizing race in redistricting decisions renders the resulting maps vulnerable to constitutional challenges. By instructing Texas to redraw districts with race as a primary factor, the Justice Department effectively created a legal vulnerability.
Texas’s Response & The Legal Fallout
Governor Abbott promptly added the issue to the agenda for a special legislative session, complying with the DOJ’s demand for a racially-motivated gerrymander. As Judge Brown pointed out, the Trump administration’s initial attempt to push partisan gerrymandering failed, but its call for racial redistricting achieved “quick results.”
The court’s decision isn’t solely about the Voting Rights Act; it rests on the constitutional principle that race should not be the dominant factor in drawing legislative maps. Even if the Supreme Court weakens the Voting Rights Act, the ruling in LULAC could still stand.
The Mistake That Backfired
The irony is stark: if Texas had enacted the same maps without explicitly referencing race, they would have likely been legal. The Trump administration, by framing the redistricting in racial terms, handed opponents a potent legal argument.
The case will now proceed to the Supreme Court. While the outcome remains uncertain, even a conservative court may uphold the lower court’s decision given the clear legal precedent against racial gerrymandering.
The Justice Department’s misinterpretation of voting rights law, combined with Texas officials’ eager compliance, may inadvertently reshape the political landscape, potentially costing Republicans crucial House seats.
