Gerrymandering is the redrawing of voting district boundaries to tilt political power in favor of one political party. Right now, Texas Republicans are aggressively attempting to redraw voting districts early before the next census, to lock in more seats, weaken the influence of BIPOC communities, and diminish the political power of progressive urban centers. Their plan could give them control of up to 30 of Texas’s 38 congressional seats. That’s five more than they already hold, drastically tipping the political scales in their favor. This aggressive push has sparked national outrage, legal challenges, and a wave of political resistance.
One proposed map targets diverse, Democratic-leaning areas like Austin and would effectively dismantle Rep. Greg Casar’s district, a majority-BIPOC, progressive seat. Communities of color would be split into surrounding Republican strongholds. Civil rights advocates say this is a textbook case of “cracking and packing,” where minority voters are either scattered to weaken their power or packed into one district to limit their influence elsewhere.
In protest, Texas Democrats fled the state to break quorum, halting the vote and drawing national attention. Their actions led to threats of arrest and sparked a larger conversation about the erosion of voting rights and democracy in the South.
The fight is even more urgent now that key protections in the federal Voting Rights Act have been rolled back, giving states like Texas more freedom to change voting maps without federal oversight. That raises serious concerns about disenfranchisement, especially for communities already facing barriers to access and representation.
Key parts of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights law that once required states with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting laws, have been gutted, leaving communities of color with fewer legal safeguards. Now, advocates say Texas is taking full advantage.
“The map as proposed clearly violates the Voting Rights Act and is unconstitutional,” said Lydia Camarillo, president of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. “It’s canceling out districts that are part of the Voting Rights Act … and it’s not giving Latinos the right to represent their voice based on their population growth.”
That’s especially alarming given that Hispanics are now the largest population group in Texas, making up about 40% of the state, yet they only hold one-fifth of the congressional seats. After the last census, civic groups argued that this growth clearly justifies at least two new Latino-majority districts: one in Houston and one in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. A dozen organizations and individual plaintiffs are now suing the state in federal court, demanding fair representation and compliance with the law.
In response to Texas’s aggressive redistricting push, Democratic-led states like California, New York, and Illinois are weighing a move they’ve traditionally been opposed to: drawing their own maps to favor Democrats. Some leaders are now openly discussing ways to override or pause their independent redistricting commissions, institutions they once held up as models of fairness; in order to secure more Democratic seats in Congress. It’s a major shift, signaling how deeply the rules of the game have changed. Former Attorney General Eric Holder, once a strong voice for nonpartisan reform, now says Democrats have no choice but to “fight fire with fire,” calling the moment a “democratic existential crisis.”
But this strategy isn’t without controversy. Organizations like Common Cause are urging caution, warning that if blue states join in the gerrymandering race, it could permanently damage public trust in elections. And even for those who support the idea, it’s not a simple fix. In states like New York, rolling back independent map making would require constitutional amendments, multiple rounds of legislative votes, and ultimately, approval from voters, an uphill battle that makes swift action nearly impossible.
As Texas moves forward with aggressive new redistricting plans, many expect the courts to play a decisive role. But whether they’ll intervene, especially at the federal level isn’t guaranteed. The legal landscape has shifted in recent years, most notably in the Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which ruled that partisan gerrymandering, no matter how extreme, is a political issue outside the jurisdiction of federal courts. This means that unless challengers can prove racial discrimination, rather than just partisan bias, federal judges are unlikely to step in.
That’s where United States v. Texas comes in. Filed by the Department of Justice in late 2021, the case argues that Texas’s redistricting map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by intentionally weakening the voting power of Latino and Black communities. Civil rights organizations say the state’s booming Latino growth merits at least two new Latino-majority districts, yet none were created.
Texas has a long history with legal battles over racial gerrymandering. In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006), the Supreme Court found that one district map violated the Voting Rights Act, although it allowed most of the broader map to stand. Earlier still, in Bush v. Vera (1996), the Court struck down several racially gerrymandered districts, reinforcing that when race is used manipulatively, even under the guise of demographic representation, it crosses a constitutional line.
But times have changed and with federal protections like the Voting Rights Act weakened, today’s lawsuits face higher legal hurdles. Plaintiffs now must prove that maps were intentionally drawn to suppress racial minorities, a tough standard, especially when race and party are so closely intertwined in many parts of the country. Unless courts find explicit evidence of racial discrimination, many of these challenges could fall short, leaving deeply gerrymandered maps in place for years to come.
This isn’t just about Texas, it’s a warning. The ripple effects of unchecked gerrymandering could set a precedent that other states follow, deepening the crisis of public trust in elections and government. With federal protections weakened, the courts uncertain, and both parties increasingly willing to play hardball, the future of fair representation hangs in the balance.
That’s why this moment demands more than lawsuits and legislative maneuvering, it calls for renewed civic engagement, structural reform, and a national recommitment to the core promise of representative democracy: that every vote matters and every voice counts.