...
By Gabe Whisnant
News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Voting-rights groups on Monday filed a new challenge to Justice Samuel Alito’s order allowing Texas to use its newly drawn congressional map, telling the U.S. Supreme Court the state’s plan is an “extraordinary” case of racial gerrymandering that cannot be shielded by the Purcell principle.
The complaint, submitted days after Alito temporarily reinstated the Republican-favored map, argues the lower court was correct in finding that Black and Hispanic voters were likely to prevail on claims that the 2026 district lines dilute minority voting power.
Why It Matters
If the lower court ruling ultimately prevails, Texas could be forced to revert to the 2021 map drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature using 2020 census data. The Supreme Court’s decision in the coming days will determine whether the 2026 map remains intact while litigation continues.
Read More on News
What To Know
Alito issued the emergency order Friday in his capacity as the justice who handles urgent appeals from Texas, saying the map could remain in place while the full court considers whether it should be used for the 2026 midterm elections. Texas urged the justices to intervene quickly, warning that any change to district lines months before the March primary would disrupt election preparations and confuse voters.
The state also leaned heavily on the Purcell principle, a judicial guideline advising courts to avoid altering election rules or boundaries close to an election.
...
But the groups challenging the map say Purcell does not apply here, noting that the general election is more than a year away, the candidate-filing window remains open for weeks, and state officials testified at trial that those deadlines could be extended without any significant administrative burden. They argue that reverting to the map used in the previous two election cycles would create less confusion than keeping the disputed version in place.
A three-judge federal panel in El Paso ruled 2–1 last week that Texas’ latest redistricting plan — enacted this summer as part of President Donald Trump’s push to lock in a narrow House majority — was likely drawn with discriminatory intent. The map, engineered to give Republicans five additional seats, is one of several GOP-backed redistricting plans facing court challenges nationwide. Missouri and North Carolina have adopted similar maps adding one Republican seat apiece, while California voters approved a separate initiative designed to give Democrats five additional seats.
What People Are Saying
**Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement: "**The radical left is once again trying to undermine the will of the people. The Big Beautiful Map was entirely legal and passed for partisan purposes to better represent the political affiliations of Texas. For years, Democrats have engaged in partisan redistricting intended to eliminate Republican representation. Democratic states across the country, from California to Illinois to New York, have systematically reduced representation of Republican voters in their congressional delegations. But when Republicans respond in kind, Democrats rely on false accusations of racism to secure a partisan advantage."
Abha Khanna, a partner at Elias Law Group who represented a group of Texas voters challenging the new congressional map, said in a statement sent to Newsweek: "Today's decision is a critical victory for voting rights and a powerful rebuke of Texas's brazen attempt to dilute the political power of Latino and Black voters. It has been clear from the beginning that this mid-decade redistricting was a targeted attack on minority communities' constitutional rights.”
What Happens Next
The dispute comes as the justices also weigh a redistricting case from Louisiana that could significantly narrow the use of race-based districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a ruling that could reverberate across multiple states embroiled in similar fights.
Updates: 11/24/25, 4:08 p.m. ET: This article was updated with new information and remarks.
Clarification: 11/24/25, 4:29 p.m. ET: The headline on this article was updated to clarify that Alito decided to issue an emergency order, not a ruling.
This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines