Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Federal racial gerrymandering cases heat up in three states

racial gerrymandering court cases
OsakaWayneStudios/Getty Images

Thanks to a 2019 Supreme Court ruling, the federal judiciary has no role in resolving disputes over partisan gerrymandering. But racial gerrymandering remains within the purview of the federal courts, and cases are heating up.

Every 10 years, following the Census Bureau’s counting of the U.S. population, states redraw their legislative and congressional district maps. This redistricting process is supposed to account for population shifts, but both the Democratic and Republican parties have used it to secure as many seats as possible for the following decade.

Legislatures control the redistricting process in more than 30 states, while some states use commissions to draw state lines and a handful have a hybrid system.

There has been legal maneuvering in three states — Alabama, Tennessee and Washington — over the past few days regarding the role race has played in the remapping process.


Alabama

On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ordered the Republican-controlled Legislature to redraw the congressional map, ruling the new lines violate the Voting Rights Act. On Tuesday, the state attorney general appealed the ruling.

The court determined that the approved map, in which minorities would only be a majority in one out of the state's seven congressional districts, must be redrawn. Black people represent 27 percent of the state population.

“The appropriate remedy is a congressional redistricting plan that includes either an additional majority-Black congressional district, or an additional district in which Black voters otherwise have an opportunity to elect a representative of their choice,” the court wrote in its ruling.

Read more about the case.

Tennessee

The state Democratic Party has said it is preparing to file a lawsuit over Tennessee’s new congressional district maps after the GOP-run General Assembly moved forward with a plan that dilutes the minority voting power.

According to the Tennessean, the plan “ cracks ” Davidson County, which is centered on Nashville, spreading the city’s majority-Black population across three districts. Republicans currently hold seven of the state’s nine congressional districts, and this plan could cement their control over an eighth seat.

“We are extremely concerned that the maps that were drawn reflect not just partisan gerrymandering but racial gerrymandering, which is in direct violation of the [Voting Rights Act],” League of Women Voters of Tennessee President Debbie Gould told WPLN.

Read more about Tennessee redistricting and the pending lawsuit.

Washington

Last week, a collection of voting rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of eight Latino voters and the Southcentral Coalition of People of Color for Redistricting, arguing the state’s new legislative maps violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Latino voters.

“The Commission’s approved state legislative district map cracks Latino voters in the Yakima Valley region, diluting their voting strength by placing them in several legislative districts with white voting majorities,” the lawsuit states. “Under the Commission’s approved state legislative district map, Latino voters in the Yakima Valley region will not be able to elect candidates of their choice and the map does not create a district in the Yakima Valley area that complies with the Voting Rights Act.”

UCLA Voting Rights Project, Campaign Legal Center, and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of the plaintiffs.

“Federal and state courts have twice invalidated election systems that discriminate against Yakima Valley’s Latino voters,” said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting for CLC. “The commission’s refusal to learn from these court decisions has necessitated this third lawsuit. The discriminatory voting practices against Latino voters in the Yakima Valley must end.”

Unlike Alabama and Tennessee, where the legislatures control the redistricting process, Washington uses an independent commission.

Read more about the lawsuit.

Read More

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event in Lubbock on Oct 7, 2025. Paxton is seeking to shut down Jolt Initiative, a civic engagement group for Latinos, alleging that it's involved in illegal voter registration efforts. The group is fighting back.

Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut the organization down.

Paxton announced Monday that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that it had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event in Lubbock on Oct 7, 2025. Paxton is seeking to shut down Jolt Initiative, a civic engagement group for Latinos, alleging that it's involved in illegal voter registration efforts. The group is fighting back.

Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut the organization down.

Paxton announced Monday that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that it had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.”

Keep ReadingShow less
MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

A deep dive into ongoing threats to U.S. democracy—from MAGA election interference and state voting restrictions to filibuster risks—as America approaches 2026 and 2028.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

Tuesday, November 4, demonstrated again that Americans want democracy and US elections are conducted credibly. Voter turnout was strong; there were few administrative glitches, but voters’ choices were honored.

The relatively smooth elections across the country nonetheless took place despite electiondenial and anti-voting efforts continuing through election day. These efforts will likely intensify as we move toward the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. The MAGA drive for unprecedented mid-decade, extreme political gerrymandering of congressional districts to guarantee their control of the House of Representatives is a conspicuous thrust of their campaign to remain in power at all costs.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

Major redistricting cases in Louisiana and Texas threaten the Voting Rights Act and the representation of Black and Latino voters across the South.

Getty Images, kali9

The Voting Rights Act Is Under Attack in the South

Under court order, Louisiana redrew to create a second majority-Black district—one that finally gave true representation to the community where my family lives. But now, that district—and the entire Voting Rights Act (VRA)—are under attack. Meanwhile, here in Texas, Republican lawmakers rammed through a mid-decade redistricting plan that dramatically reduces Black and Latino voting power in Congress. As a Louisiana-born Texan, it’s disheartening to see that my rights to representation as a Black voter in Texas, and those of my family back home in Louisiana, are at serious risk.

Two major redistricting cases in these neighboring states—Louisiana v. Callais and Texas’s statewide redistricting challenge, LULAC v. Abbott—are testing the strength and future of the VRA. In Louisiana, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide not just whether Louisiana must draw a majority-Black district to comply with Section 2 of the VRA, but whether considering race as one factor to address proven racial discrimination in electoral maps can itself be treated as discriminatory. It’s an argument that contradicts the purpose of the VRA: to ensure all people, regardless of race, have an equal opportunity to elect candidates amid ongoing discrimination and suppression of Black and Latino voters—to protect Black and Brown voters from dilution.

Keep ReadingShow less