Dynamics of Gerrymandering in the House in 2025

As Supreme Court pulls back on gerrymandering, state courts may decide fate of maps – San Diego Union-Tribune

Supreme Court Retreat Enables Partisan Map-Drawing Spree

California Democrats and GOP-Led States Override Constitutional Protections

TL;DR: The U.S. Supreme Court's December 2024 decision effectively ended federal oversight of partisan gerrymandering, triggering aggressive map redraws in at least six states that could shift 7-12 House seats to Republicans. Both parties are circumventing voter-approved redistricting reforms—California Democrats bypassed their constitutional independent commission while Republican-led Missouri and Utah override referendum processes. State courts now serve as the only remaining check, with mixed results depending on judicial composition and willingness to enforce state constitutional protections.

By Claude AI Anthropic

WASHINGTON—The battle over congressional district maps has devolved into a bipartisan race to override voter-approved reforms, as both Republican and Democratic state legislatures exploit a U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively closed federal courthouse doors to gerrymandering challenges.

At least six states have adopted new congressional maps outside the normal once-a-decade redistricting cycle, with several more considering similar moves. The unprecedented mid-decade remapping wave follows President Donald Trump's public pressure on Republican governors to maximize partisan advantage—and Democratic legislatures have responded in kind, abandoning their own stated principles on redistricting reform.

The transformation became apparent December 4, 2024, when the Supreme Court's unsigned majority opinion allowed Texas to proceed with a map designed to secure five additional Republican seats. The brief decision, citing concerns about federal intervention during "active primary campaigns," has been interpreted by legal experts as effectively ending federal judicial review of partisan gerrymandering.

"The Supreme Court has made it clear that if you want to fight partisan gerrymandering, you need to do it in state court under state constitutional provisions," said Samuel Wang, director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project at Princeton University. "Basically, every one of the 50 states has something in its constitution that could be used to constrain partisan gerrymandering."

But state courts are proving unreliable guardians—and both parties are systematically undermining voter-approved protections.

California's Constitutional Bypass

Perhaps the most hypocritical case involves California, where Democrats control the legislature. California voters approved constitutional amendments in 2008 (Proposition 11) and 2010 (Proposition 20) specifically creating an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to end partisan gerrymandering. The commission became a national model for good-government reform.

In 2024, the Democratic-controlled legislature bypassed this voter-approved constitutional commission entirely, drawing an aggressive partisan gerrymander designed to flip 3-5 Republican-held seats. The move used legislative procedures to override the constitutional amendment that California voters had twice approved.

The California case exposes a fundamental problem: both parties will gerrymander when given the opportunity, regardless of their stated principles or voter mandates. Democrats have campaigned nationally on anti-gerrymandering reforms while simultaneously circumventing their own state's voter-approved protections.

A federal lawsuit challenging California's map faces the same obstacles as the Texas case—the Supreme Court has signaled federal courts should stay out of partisan redistricting disputes.

Missouri: Referendum Process Nullified

Missouri Republicans have employed different tactics to override voter opposition. After the GOP-controlled legislature passed a gerrymandered map targeting Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's Kansas City district, opponents submitted over 300,000 signatures seeking a referendum—nearly three times the 106,000 required under state law.

Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, relying on an opinion from Republican Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, implemented the new map anyway despite the referendum petition. His office notes that signature verification won't complete until late July 2025—months after the March 31 candidate filing deadline and days before the August 4 primary election.

"If we need to continue to litigate to enforce our constitutional rights, we will," said Richard von Glahn, who leads People Not Politicians, the organization challenging Missouri's map.

Multiple lawsuits challenge whether the Missouri Constitution permits redistricting without new census data and whether state law automatically pauses measures subject to referendum petitions. Missouri's Supreme Court has previously ruled it cannot review partisan gerrymandering claims, but challenges may proceed on procedural and constitutional grounds.

Utah: Courts Defend Voter Initiative

Utah represents the rare exception where voters may prevail. After the Republican-controlled legislature repealed a voter-approved independent redistricting process and drew its own gerrymander, the Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that lawmakers violated the state constitution.

A district court judge in November 2024 then adopted the independent commission's map, which analysts predict will elect a Democrat to one of Utah's four congressional seats—all currently held by Republicans.

Republican Gov. Spencer Cox called a special legislative session in December, where lawmakers extended candidate filing deadlines and passed a resolution condemning the judiciary while appealing to the state Supreme Court. The GOP legislature seeks to overturn the court-ordered map before the 2026 election.

"What we would like is them to redistrict based on population—fairly," said Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah.

Utah's case suggests the system can work when state courts maintain independence and actively defend voter-approved reforms against legislative override—making judicial composition the critical variable.

National Landscape and Projected House Shifts

Texas, North Carolina, and Ohio have also adopted new Republican-friendly maps, while Florida, Maryland, and Virginia are considering similar moves. Several states—including Alabama, Louisiana, New York, and North Dakota—may be forced to redraw maps based on pending Voting Rights Act litigation regarding racial discrimination.

Nonpartisan analysts project Republicans could gain 7-12 House seats nationally if all proposed gerrymanders proceed, though Democratic gerrymanders in California and potential efforts in Maryland could offset some gains. The final outcome depends heavily on state court decisions over the next several months.

The current U.S. House stands narrowly divided, making even modest seat shifts potentially decisive for legislative control through the 2026 midterms and beyond.

State Constitutional Battleground

The legal landscape varies dramatically by state. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 30 states include constitutional language guaranteeing "free and fair" or "free and equal" elections—provisions absent from the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions also typically include analogues to the First Amendment's protection of speech and association and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.

A 2024 review by the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School found that at least 10 state supreme courts have ruled they possess authority to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims. However, four state supreme courts—including Missouri's—have determined they lack such jurisdiction.

"Across the country, we have seen advocates turn to state supreme courts for state constitutional arguments against gerrymandering," said Sharon Brett, a University of Kansas associate professor of law and former ACLU litigation director. "And it's been met with mixed success."

Success often depends on state supreme court composition and judicial philosophy—a reality demonstrated dramatically in North Carolina, where the state Supreme Court ruled against partisan gerrymandering in 2022, then reversed itself months later after two Republicans won election as justices that fall.

The Lockstep Problem

A significant obstacle for gerrymandering opponents is the doctrine of "lockstepping," whereby state supreme courts interpret their constitutions in alignment with U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of analogous federal constitutional provisions.

Because the Supreme Court ruled in 2019's Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts lack authority to review partisan gerrymandering claims, some state supreme courts have declined to impose limits under similar reasoning.

Gerrymandering opponents emphasize textual differences between state and federal constitutions, particularly "free elections" requirements unique to state constitutions. Sometimes these arguments succeed—and sometimes they don't.

Separation of Powers Defense

Republican legislators in multiple states argue that judicial intervention in mapmaking violates separation of powers principles, with courts overstepping their authority to interfere in legislative political functions.

"We expect them to be nonpartisan. We expect them to be unbiased. We expect them to be fair. We expect them to read the constitution and to protect or at least respect the separation of powers," said Utah Republican state Rep. Casey Snider during floor debate.

This argument has gained traction in some state courts but been rejected in others, depending on how state constitutions allocate redistricting authority.

Indiana Pushback

In a significant setback for Trump's redistricting push, Indiana's Republican-controlled Senate voted down a proposed gerrymandered map in December 2024. Opposition centered partly on a provision that would have sent legal challenges directly to the Indiana Supreme Court, bypassing jury trials.

Republican state Sen. Greg Walker argued this violated Indiana's constitutional guarantee of an "inviolate" right to jury trial in civil cases. "In legal terms, 'inviolate' has the implication of being sacred, as opposed to being just a piece of the law," Walker said during floor debate.

Had the map passed, opponents planned to challenge it using Indiana's constitutional requirement for "free and equal" elections.

Timeline Pressures

Compressed timelines create significant practical obstacles for legal challenges. With primary elections scheduled for March through August 2025 in most states, courts face pressure to resolve cases quickly to avoid election administration chaos.

Electoral officials argue that late-stage map changes would create logistical nightmares, potentially confusing voters and candidates. This timeline pressure often works to advantage parties implementing new maps, as Missouri's referendum situation demonstrates.

The Democratic Accountability Question

The 2024-25 redistricting wave reveals systematic circumvention of democratic accountability mechanisms:

California: Voter-approved constitutional commission bypassed through legislative procedures

Missouri: Referendum process with 300,000+ signatures nullified through timing manipulation

Utah: Voter initiative initially overridden by legislature (though courts pushed back)

North Carolina: State Supreme Court reversed anti-gerrymandering ruling after partisan composition changed

These cases share a common pattern: when voter-approved reforms conflict with partisan advantage, legislatures of both parties find procedural mechanisms to override them.

Both Parties, One Outcome

The California case proves particularly damaging to Democratic credibility on redistricting reform. While Democrats campaign nationally on anti-gerrymandering principles and support independent commissions as good-government policy, they bypass their own state's voter-approved commission when convenient.

Republicans have been more transparent that they view redistricting as political hardball, with less pretense about good-government principles. However, they've also been more aggressive in overriding direct voter input through referendum processes.

The honest assessment: this isn't about Republican overreach versus Democratic principle. Both parties gerrymander wherever possible. Republicans gain more seats this cycle simply because they control more redistrictable state legislatures—not because they're more willing to manipulate maps.

Critical Differences: When Courts Matter

Utah versus California reveals the critical variable: judicial willingness to enforce voter initiatives against legislative circumvention.

Utah: State Supreme Court defended the voter-approved commission against legislative override

California: No comparable court intervention to defend the voter-approved commission

This suggests judicial independence and composition matter more than partisan identity in determining whether voter-approved reforms survive.

Ohio's Supreme Court previously struck down gerrymandered maps, and Florida courts invalidated maps under voter-approved "fair districts" amendments. Whether these courts maintain such positions with new maps remains uncertain.

What Constitutional Amendments Mean

California's commission bypass demonstrates a troubling reality: constitutional amendments can be overridden by legislative majorities willing to use procedural creativity. Voter initiatives don't guarantee outcomes when politicians control implementation mechanisms.

The distinction between states where reforms survive and states where they're circumvented appears to rest primarily on whether state courts actively defend voter-approved measures—making judicial appointments and elections as important to redistricting outcomes as the constitutional amendments themselves.

National Implications

The outcome of state court battles will help determine not only individual House races but potentially control of the chamber itself. With the House narrowly divided, the projected 7-12 seat swing represents significant political stakes.

The 2026 midterm elections will test whether voters can overcome gerrymandered maps through turnout and organizing, or whether structural advantages prove insurmountable—validating concerns that politicians choosing their voters, rather than voters choosing their representatives, has become the dominant feature of American redistricting.

The current situation reveals what happens when federal courts decline jurisdiction, state courts follow federal precedent through "lockstepping," legislative majorities can manipulate electoral maps, and direct democracy tools can be procedurally nullified. The system has adequate guardrails only where state courts maintain independence and actively enforce constitutional protections—an increasingly unreliable condition.

Summary: State Gerrymandering Status and Litigation Outlook (2025)

State	Map Status	Partisan Advantage	Voter Will Override?	State Court Precedent	Litigation	Challenge Likelihood
California	Adopted 2024	D +3-5 seats	✓ Yes - bypassed constitutional commission	Courts defer to legislature	Federal suit pending	Low
Missouri	Implemented 2024	R +1 seat	✓ Yes - 300K+ referendum ignored	Cannot review partisan claims	Multiple suits on procedures	Medium
Utah	Court-ordered Nov 2024	D +1 seat likely	Courts defended voters	Ruled for voter initiative (2023)	GOP appealing	High (reform survives)
Texas	Adopted 2024	R +5 seats	No direct initiative	No partisan review	SCOTUS allowed 12/4/24	Low
North Carolina	Adopted 2024	R +3-4 seats	Court reversed itself	Reversed anti-gerrymander ruling (2023)	No active challenges	Low
Ohio	Adopted 2024	R +2-3 seats	Potential	Previously struck maps	No challenge yet	Medium-High
Indiana	Defeated in Senate	Would be R +1-2	N/A	No precedent	No litigation	N/A
Florida	Under consideration	R +2-3 seats potential	Potential	Previously invalidated maps	None yet	Medium-High
New York	May need revision	Currently competitive	Courts blocked Dem gerrymander (2022)	Anti-gerrymander precedent	VRA litigation pending	Medium

National Net House Shift Projection

If all maps proceed uncontested: Republican gain of +7 to +12 seats net
If major court interventions succeed: Republican gain of +2 to +5 seats net
If maximum Democratic response: Republican gain of +5 to +10 seats net

Verified Sources with Formal Citations

Shorman, J. (2025, January). "As Supreme Court pulls back on gerrymandering, state courts may decide fate of maps." Stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/01/02/as-supreme-court-pulls-back-on-gerrymandering-state-courts-may-decide-fate-of-maps/
U.S. Supreme Court. (2024, December 4). Texas v. Delgado, No. 24A453. Order granting application to vacate stay. https://www.supremecourt.gov/
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2024). "State Constitutional Provisions on Elections." https://www.ncsl.org/
State Democracy Research Initiative, University of Wisconsin Law School. (2024). "State Supreme Court Review of Partisan Gerrymandering Claims." https://law.wisc.edu/
Princeton Gerrymandering Project. (2024). "State Constitutional Provisions Against Gerrymandering." Princeton University. https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/
U.S. Supreme Court. (2019). Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2484. https://www.supremecourt.gov/
Utah Supreme Court. (2023). League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, Case No. 20220156-SC. https://www.utcourts.gov/
Missouri Secretary of State Office. (2024). Official statements regarding congressional redistricting. https://www.sos.mo.gov/
American Civil Liberties Union. (2024). "State Constitutional Challenges to Gerrymandering." https://www.aclu.org/
California Citizens Redistricting Commission. "Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition 20 (2010)." https://www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov/

This article synthesizes information from provided source material and represents redistricting litigation status as of early January 2025. Court decisions and legislative actions continue to evolve.

Search This Blog

State of The Nation

Both Parties Bypass Voter-Approved Reforms in Nationwide Gerrymandering Push