Congressional Map

• Alabama's state Legislature adjourned a special session on Monday after demonstrators entered the State House in Montgomery to protest Republican plans to adopt a gerrymandered congressional map that dilutes Black voter power. • Following the Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down the last remaining major provision of the Voting Rights Act, Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall filed an emergency motion to lift an existing injunction barring map changes before 2030. • The protest reflects broader national tensions over voting rights and congressional redistricting following the Court's decision to gut key Voting Rights Act protections.

• Florida has become the latest state to approve a partisan gerrymandered congressional map, reflecting ongoing efforts to reshape electoral districts for political advantage. • The redistricting decision continues the national battle over gerrymandering, with states competing to structure congressional districts to favor particular political parties. • The approval demonstrates the persistent challenge of partisan gerrymandering in U.S. electoral politics and its impact on representation and competitive races.

Ron DeSantis approves maps that give Republicans an advantage in four more races in November’s midtermsUS politics live – latest updatesFlorida governor Ron DeSantis signed a new gerrymandered congressional district map into law Monday which gives Republicans an electoral advantage in four additional races in November’s midterm elections.“Signed, Sealed, and Delivered,” DeSantis said in a post on X, with a map of the new districts attached. Continue reading...

• A Pennsylvania state court ordered election officials to draw a new congressional map by June 2026, ruling that the current Republican‑backed map unlawfully diluted the voting strength of Black and Latino communities in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. • The judge found that the existing districts concentrated minority voters into a handful of “safe” Democratic seats, limiting their influence in neighboring competitive districts and violating state constitutional protections for equal representation. • The decision threatens Republican hopes of holding a narrow House majority in 2026 and could force the legislature into a court‑supervised redistricting process if lawmakers cannot agree on a replacement map.

• The Supreme Court decided on April 29, 2026, whether Louisiana's new congressional map constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, marking a significant ruling on voting rights and district boundaries. • The case, Louisiana v. Callais, examined Louisiana's 2022 redrawn congressional districts that were previously challenged in federal court under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. • This decision affects ongoing redistricting battles across the country as states prepare for the 2026 midterm elections, with implications for both Democratic and Republican seat counts.

• Florida Governor Ron DeSantis unveiled new congressional district maps that could eliminate additional Democratic seats in the House. • The redistricting proposal targets areas with Democratic incumbents, intensifying battles ahead of the 2026 midterms. • Republicans see this as key to maintaining House majority, while Democrats warn of voter suppression tactics.

At the heart of the case was the question of how much lawmakers are allowed to consider race when they redraw districtsSign up for the Breaking News US email to get newsletter alerts in your inboxThe US supreme court has ruled that Louisiana will have to redraw its congressional map, in a landmark voting rights case.At the heart of the case, Louisiana v Callais, was a thorny question of how much lawmakers are allowed to consider race when they redraw districts to ensure that Black voters are adequately represented. The supreme court initially heard oral arguments in the case last March, but took the unusual step of asking lawyers to re-argue the case last fall. In setting the case for a re-argument, the justices raised the stakes of the case, asking lawyers to focus on whether section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was constitutional. Continue reading...