Desperate House Lines

Mid-decade redistricting, Part 1: How low can you go?

This post has been modified to reflect new information. -Sam

Early this morning I joined Kim Brunhuber on CNN International to talk about the latest attack on U.S. democracy: mid-decade redistricting.

On CNN International: Kim Brunhuber and Sam Wang. Click to watch the full clip.

I made it sound simple: most of the opportunities for malfeasance belong to Republicans, but the effect might not be large enough to make a difference in the 2026 election. Therefore Democrats shouldn’t engage in tit-for-tat with their own gerrymanders.

However, it’s not that easy. Here at Fixing Bugs In Democracy, let me divide the question into two parts:

1. Will any consequences be large enough to affect who controls Congress in 2027?

2. What should Republicans and Democrats do now? Is the outcome worth the effort? To what extent should they be willing to tear up laws, norms, and existing reforms?

Today I will address point #1, and save point #2 for a later post. One big reason is that the answer to #2 depends on the answer to #1. If the question is whether to fight fire with fire, is the benefit worth the risk of burning everything down?

Desperation Time

In the modern age of voting rights, redistricting is almost always done only in the year following the census, i.e. 2011, 2021, 2031… Doing so once per decade is necessary in order to maintain equal population between Congressional or legislative districts within a state.

However, the Supreme Court’s growing hostility to voting rights means it’s open season on such norms.

Republicans in Congress only won a 5-seat majority in 2024. This is an incredibly small margin, the smallest since 1930. Shifting just 3 districts in 2026 would be enough to give control to Democrats. Which means that in 2026, the smallest change in public opinion (indeed, even unusual weather on election day) might be enough.

Now add two more facts. (a) National politics has gotten ever more polarized and extreme since the mid-1990s; and (b) during that time the median change in seats in an election has been 13 seats.

And 13 is a lot more than 3.

In ten of the twelve elections in non-redistricting years, the change has been 3 or more seats. So even if no new redistricting takes place at all, Republicans are in trouble. And with the extreme changes in our system of government happening with single-party control, a change in partisan control of one chamber of Congress would be an extremely big deal.

Tearing the couch apart for loose change

In 2022, I estimated the net result of redistricting as a 6-seat advantage for Republicans compared with neutral map-drawing processes. This was a considerably more balanced overall outcome than previous decades, especially compared with 2012. There are more competitive Congressional and legislative elections, thanks to commissions and courts (see our 50-state review). Might this positive trajectory be reversed?

Redistricting in the middle of the decade is a move born of desperation. Indeed, both parties may be under exceptional pressure to eke out the smallest gains. The goal, to make (or avoid) a net change of three seats, is the equivalent of loose change.

However, desperation can lead to stupid moves. As I wrote about Texas, excessively aggressive redistricting can backfire.

The prime targets for mid-decade redistricting are states under single-party control. These states are typically already gerrymandered, but the map could either be even more aggressive, or accidentally helped the other party, a “dummymander.”

Texas and Florida

For Republicans, the largest gains may occur in Texas and Florida. Certain things stand in the way, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for example. Also, getting too greedy.

As I wrote last week, pursuing Trump's goal of gaining five congressional seats in Texas is probably not a great move. It would require some exceptionally contorted shapes and displace up to a dozen sitting Republican congressmen. And the resulting margins might not withstand a Democratic wave in 2026.

But the Texas legislature could manage to make smaller gains. Compared with the current gerrymander, which gets them 25 out of 38 Republican seats, Texas could possibly extract up to 3 additional Republican seats. This would require eliminating districts where Hispanic populations have the ability to elect members of their choosing. With a Department of Justice and a Supreme Court is keen to erode race-based voting rights, they can probably get away with this - and also effectively end Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

A similar story emerges in Florida. Currently, the Florida congressional delegation comprises 20 Republicans and 8 Democrats. This map is already aggressively gerrymandered. Governor DeSantis may be tempted to use Trump’s 13-point win in 2024, powered by Hispanic voters in south Florida, to guide the preparation of an even more aggressive map. But like Texas, an excessively aggressive strategy might backfire: in a near-tie vote under the current map, Republicans would lose 3 of their 20 seats. Keeping in mind that the goal is to protect against a Democratic wave in 2026, the best hope of a new map would be to avoid those losses. However, an upside gain of up to two or three Republican seats is possible.

Potential gains from new maps: in Texas, 3 added Republican seats; in Florida, 2 added Republican seats.

A failing grade for Florida’s Congressional map.

Ohio

Under the complex rules of Ohio redistricting, any plan passed on a purely partisan basis, as was the case in 2021, can only be used for four years. Ohio is therefore required to draw a new map this year.

Ohio’s current Congressional plan has backfired on Republicans. It appears to have been intended as an aggressive gerrymander which could have produced as many as 13 Republican seats out of 15. But Democrats did unusually well in 2022 and 2024, and held Republicans to only 10 seats.

The legislature or redistricting commission—in both cases dominated by Republicans—will likely want a safer gerrymander. They still have to follow Ohio law, which does things like force Cincinnati to be kept whole within a single district. The new plan might safely be able to deliver one or two more seats, ending up with up to 12 Republican seats in total.

(It should be noted that Ohio Democrats have mechanisms to prevent this from happening.)

A hypothetical Republican gerrymander, drawn by RRH Elections.

Potential gains from new maps in Ohio: 2 added Republican seats.

Other Republican opportunities are slim

Of the potential targets listed in a report by Punchbowl, Republicans might potentially be able to gain a seat each in Missouri and New Hampshire. These would require a change of heart by Republicans in New Hampshire, and may be against the law in Missouri. It is likely that the success or failure of efforts in Texas, Florida, and Ohio will play a role in whether they decide to disrupt their politics in the middle of the decade.

Other states (Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska) seem unlikely to participate in this mid-decade festival.

Potential Republican gains from other states: none, yet.

Democratic Party options are limited

Democrats have considerably fewer options. In many cases, even where they control redistricting, they have already enacted the most extreme possible maps: Illinois (14 D, 3 R), Oregon (5 D, 1 R), and Maryland (7 D, 1 R).

Other states have taken the redistricting power away from politicians. For example, New Jersey uses an independent commission (disclosure: I worked for it). However, it is too late for them to begin the process for abolishing it, which would require amending the state constitution. Anyway, the swing Republican district there is already at risk, and could probably be won without redrawing the map.

California is the one place where independent redistricting might be abolished in time: Governor Newsom does have the power to refer a constitutional referendum to voters. However, an independent commission, using the natural geography pattern of California's voters, has produced a map that already elects 49 Democrats and 9 Republicans. A few more seats could possibly be squeezed out. However, this requires Newsom to get voters to repeal or temporarily suspend the state’s process. That process, developed over the last few decades, specifies a citizen-based, politician-free process for drawing Congressional and legislative maps.

Potential Democratic gain in California: 3-5 seats*.

Utah

It does not count as mid-decade redistricting, but it should be noted that the Utah Supreme Court is considering a case that might restore power to the citizen redistricting commission. This would undo the current gerrymander, in which greater Salt Lake City has been divided into pieces. If that is overturned, Democrats would gain a seat.

Potential Democratic gain in Utah: 1 seat.

*DRA fanatics, weigh in please.

Summary

For the time being, mid-decade redistricting would net Republicans a total of up to 7 additional seats in Texas,Ohio, and Florida. Democrats might possibly gain 6 seats in California (in response to Republican actions) and Utah. The total net change compared with current conditions would hypothetically be between 1 and 7 Republican seats.

The median swing next year expected from historical patterns is 13 seats. So while mid-decade redistricting may give Republicans a small advantage, it seems unlikely that it will be the determining factor in control of Congress.

If you like this kind of analysis, please consider supporting the Electoral Innovation Lab. The Lab uses data and science to understand the kind of distortions that currently occur in U.S. democracy. By analyzing gerrymandering and its solutions, the Lab is working to bring about fairer districting in Congress and legislatures all over the nation.