Insights

The mid-decade remap frenzy is on. With Texas Governor Greg Abbott signing a new Texas congressional map into law, state delegations across the country are now pondering their next move. Blue states like California, New York, and Illinois are expected to retaliate with new maps of their own, while red states like Ohio and Florida are facing pressure from President Donald Trump to find more seats for the GOP.

But recent history and today’s volatile political environment suggest that these new maps may not yield the results their partisan architects seek.

The shadow of dummymandering – maps that backfire on the party that drew them – looms large.

Political veterans felt a bit of déjà vu watching the remap drama unfolding in Austin. In 2003, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay engineered a mid-decade remap of Texas that played out in much the same way, with Democratic state lawmakers leaving the state to deny quorum, and eventual triumph for the GOP majority.

But the 2003 effort was sparked by a change in power at the state level – the longtime Democratic majority in Texas had finally succumbed to the political realignment that had been brewing for years. A native son was in the White House and heading toward a reelection year on the heels of wartime popularity, providing strong coattails for members to seize as they adjusted to new districts.

By contrast, the Texas power structure today is pretty much the same one that drew the map they just scrapped, and members will have to run in new districts in a potentially challenging midterm environment. While the 2024 data suggests growth opportunities for GOP strength, the 2022, 2020, and 2018 numbers suggest otherwise.

In short, for the new map to work, the Hispanic realignment that propelled Trump to such strong 2024 numbers will have to hold through the midterms, without the President at the top of the ticket. Betting on enduring realignments at any time is dangerous (the “Obama Coalition” disappeared pretty quickly in Iowa). Today’s chaotic political environment makes the numbers even harder to read, as mass deportation and urban militarization target Hispanic communities more than any other, and cuts to education and Medicaid disproportionately impact these same communities.

This in fact happened in the redrawn Texas map in 2006, when Republican Henry Bonilla lost his weakened border seat to Democrat Ciro Rodriguez, while Democrat Chet Edwards survived in a redder district than before, and Democrat Nick Lampson ultimately won Tom DeLay’s old seat after being defeated by Ted Poe in his own.

While the 2003 Texas remap ultimately resulted in more seats for the GOP, its success was more due to breaking up power bases for longtime Democratic incumbents like Charlie Stenholm and Martin Frost than redistributing voters. It’s worth noting that one of the GOP pickups was a party switch by Ralph Hall – another example of the delayed realignment that made Texas such a juicy target for remapping at that time.

Today’s Texas delegation does not provide such targets. The Republicans enjoy longstanding incumbency and established powerbases, so they have more to lose if the map goes wrong, creating situations like Pete Sessions’ 2018 loss to Colin Allred in a comparatively safe district that had been redrawn from an R+13 to an R+10.

There are plenty of cautionary tales on the other side as well. Democrats eager to scrap the non-partisan commission-drawn map in California should remember that in 2018, nearly three in four seats Democrats flipped in 2018 were in districts drawn by redistricting commissions or courts. Independent commissions have gained support with voters across the country, and reversing themselves on support for these efforts could come back to haunt Democrats.

In states like California and New York, it is also essential to consider the opposite side of the Trump effect observed in Texas. Just as Trump’s popularity in Texas may not translate to midterm success, Trump’s massive unpopularity in California doesn’t necessarily mean voters will show up and vote blue in a redrawn district and for an unfamiliar candidate.

The final wildcard in the mid-decade deck is the impact of recent Supreme Court rulings that have effectively cleared the way for explicitly partisan gerrymandering. Shelby County v. Holder removed the Voting Rights Act preclearance requirements in 2013, Rucho v Common Cause removed most judicial review of maps in 2019, and 2025’s Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP decision effectively blessed race-based gerrymanders as long as they are not explicitly defined that way.

This will likely result in fewer court-ordered remaps than in previous decades, a result that would generally favor Republicans and encourage more aggressively partisan mapmaking. But with the mandate from the White House to “find more seats” instead of protecting incumbents, longtime members may find themselves the victim of another round of dummymandered surprises in what promises to be a tumultuous midterm.