In an era of rapid demographic change and heightened political polarization, debates about representation and fairness are taking center stage during the process of redrawing voting districts, especially as courts weigh in. Today’s redistricting battles are unfolding in an era of deep polarization and with an eye on the 2026 elections and beyond, where even small shifts in district boundaries can alter national political power.
Although redistricting is not unprecedented when population or legal conditions demand it, a handful of states across the country, including Virginia, are breaking from the once-a-decade norm, prompting questions about how new boundaries are crafted, who stands to gain, and what the long-term consequences may be. Behind every map lies a complex interplay of political incentives, population shifts, legal requirements, and historical patterns.
Last week, that complexity was on display in Texas. A federal court ruled that the state could not use its newly drawn congressional map for the 2026 election, ordering it instead to retain the 2021 lines, a decision that derailed Republican hopes of adding five seats to the U.S. House. Then, on Friday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary hold on the lower court’s ruling as the case proceeds on appeal. Meanwhile, in California next week, Democrat leaders will defend their redistricting plan that voters approved on Election Day to a three-judge panel.
Beyond these legal hurdles, there’s no guarantee election results in either Texas or California will go the way the majority party hopes. “Parties in power typically try to make as many districts as they can safe for their party, but not too safe,” said UVA School of Law professor Dan Ortiz. “You have to pack in your voters, which can spread them too thin in other districts.”
“Parties in power typically try to make as many districts as they can safe for their party, but not too safe.”
In Texas and California, lawmakers crafted maps assuming 2024 voting patterns would continue, yet Ortiz warned that “if there is a political change in how people vote by more than 5 or 10 percent in either direction, then the whole thing backfires.”
Indeed, gerrymandering is a gamble. “People move in ways that are hard to predict,” said demographer Hamilton Lombard of UVA’s Weldon Cooper Center. “Over the past few decades, most of the country’s growth was concentrated in its largest metro areas. However, in recent years, small towns and rural areas have become the main destinations for people moving within the United States. The appeal of redistricting more frequently is pretty obvious because the potential gains are high, but the risk can be just as big. When migration patterns shift quickly, it becomes much harder to predict what the electorate will look like in five years. Redistricting depends on being able to do that.”
Behind the accelerating pace of map-drawing lies a deeper political anxiety: Both parties fear losing ground in a rapidly changing nation, prompting increasingly aggressive strategies. “Redistricting is almost always done through some sort of political lens,” said Lombard. “Even when bipartisan groups are drawing the lines, it is hard for there not to be a political element.”
Adding to the uncertainty is a reliance on five-year-old data from 2020. “Data accuracy concerns and fluid electoral behavior, especially among racial minority groups, mean that redistricting outcomes may look less reliable,” said Qian Cai, director of the Demographics Research Group at the Weldon Cooper Center. “Demographic change may supply context and justification, but without a new headcount, any redraw relying on five-year-old census data is unlikely to reflect current demographic realities.”
“Demographic change may supply context and justification, but without a new headcount, any redraw relying on five-year-old census data is unlikely to reflect current demographic realities.”
Moreover, during that five-year timeframe, COVID had a large impact on populations. “In recent years, small towns and rural areas have become the main destinations for people moving within the United States, while some large urban counties, like Fairfax County, VA, still haven’t regained all the population they lost during the pandemic,” said Lombard. “Since 2020, a number of ‘Zoom towns’ across the country—places like Traverse City, MI, Asheville, NC, and the rural areas around Charlottesville, VA—have attracted large numbers of urban professionals. And in the 2024 election, many of these same counties voted noticeably differently than they did four years earlier. When districts are drawn in that kind of environment, it’s hard to be confident they will hold the same political balance a few years later.”
“In the 2024 election, many counties voted differently than they did four years earlier. When districts are drawn in that kind of environment, it’s hard to be confident they will hold the same political balance a few years later.”
As states across the country wrestle with these shifting demographics, an impending Supreme Court case may fundamentally reshape the legal landscape. In Louisiana v. Callais, expected to be decided next summer, the Court will determine the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits any voting practice that discriminates based on race, color, or membership in a minority group and is currently the primary legal tool for challenging discrimination in an electoral system.
“The Supreme Court said there are no legal restraints on partisan gerrymandering,” said Ortiz. “That left Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibit racial discrimination, as the only routes to challenge a gerrymander. So, a challenge to redistricting has to have a racial angle, even if the real reason is politics.”
In Callais, the Court will decide if Section 2 is itself constitutional. “If they shut down Section 2, it will make challenges to redistricting on racial grounds much more difficult,” Ortiz said. “The Supreme Court could also just make it harder to apply Section 2, which would give states and localities much more freedom to discriminate. Either way, this decision is going to be a big deal.”
In Callais, the Court will decide if Section 2 is itself constitutional. “Either way, this decision is going to be a big deal.”
Recent immigration patterns are another consequential force. A significant number of immigrants crossing the southern border in the past few years may have prompted states like Texas and Florida to undertake new rounds of map-drawing. That said, political behavior among immigrant groups has become harder to anticipate. “You can’t as easily predict voting off demographics,” Lombard added.
Cai cautioned that slower growth, widespread aging, and rising multiracial identification complicate predictions of future electorates. “As immigrants from earlier waves naturalize and their U.S.-born children come of age, voting behavior among Asian and Hispanic groups has proven less predictable and less monolithic than historical models assumed,” she said. “At the same time, the impact of voting among recent immigrants may be overstated, given the lengthy naturalization process.”
Aging has also become an important aspect of population change across the country, with most growth occurring among people over 65. “Historically this [group] favored Republicans, though that has frayed a bit,” Lombard said.
As states continue to redraw—or attempt to redraw—their maps, they face evolving demographics, shifting legal rules, and fierce partisan competition, making this one of the most consequential redistricting periods in decades.