On election night 2020, then-President Donald Trump prematurely declared hours after polls had closed, “We already have won.”

He hadn’t, and we rated that Pants on Fire. When Trump began to speak in the early morning of Nov. 4, at 2:21 a.m. ET, states were still following normal procedures to count ballots. It was not until Saturday, Nov. 7, that The Associated Press had sufficient unofficial results available to call the race for Joe Biden.

In the past, when polls closed, politicians and social media influencers spread falsehoods about voting and the ballot counting process. It’s likely that as the votes are being counted this year, we will see falsehoods similar to those in 2020.

READ MORE: Here’s how election officials have boosted security since 2020’s threats of violence

Voters who are seeking credible sources for election results information can follow reports from state election officials nationwide, compiled by the National Association of State Election Directors. The AP is among the news outlets that will call projected winners based on unofficial results, but in many states that will not take place on election night.

Here are some falsehoods that might surface after the polls close.

Claims about thousands of dead voters

It’s a zombie claim we see during every election cycle: Huge numbers of dead people are voting! And they are all Democrats! Neither is true.

As ballot counting was underway in November 2020, X posts falsely said that over 14,000 dead people voted in Wayne County, Michigan.

Typically when voters die, it’s rare that their relatives contact local elections offices to ask that their names be removed from voter rolls. But election offices routinely receive death records from state and federal sources and then remove dead voters’ names from voter rolls. Some still end up on the rolls.

Occasionally, people illegally cast mail ballots in dead relatives’ names, as a Republican did in 2020 in Nevada. That voter was charged with felonies.

Claims that ballot errors and election site mishaps equal fraud

Although election officials spend years preparing for presidential elections, errors sometimes occur. They are not a sign of fraud.

So far this year, we’ve seen a limited number of ballots with errors, such as a typo in some ballots in Palm Beach County, Florida. County officials said 257 overseas voters opened an email with a ballot that said “Tom” Walz instead of Tim Walz, Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate.

Some election sites have mishaps, such as a 6 a.m. water leak on Election Day in 2020 at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena, where election workers were counting absentee ballots. Arena staff repaired the leak in about two hours and no ballots or machines were damaged. State and county election officials debunked the claim that election officials used the event to circumvent processes and pull out ballots stored in “suitcases” that were “all for Biden.”

Claims that there were thousands of fake votes in Pennsylvania

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, officials said in an initial Oct. 25 statement that they were investigating 2,500 “ballots,” but a county spokesperson later said that word was a mistake and the investigation was into voter registration applications.

Days later, Trump falsely said at an Allentown, Pennsylvania, rally, “We caught them with 2,600 votes. … And every vote was written by the same person.” He made similar comments on X about “fake ballots and forms” in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry, a Democrat, said in an Oct. 31 statement, “The investigations regard voter registration forms, not ballots” and were underway in four counties.

Officials don’t place people on voter rolls if their registration is suspect, so that means that there were not thousands of fake votes.

Claims about machines flipping votes

As Kentucky’s Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams wrote Nov. 2 on X, “Gentle reminder that vote-switching is fiction.” He linked to a 2008 video of Homer Simpson trying to vote for Barack Obama but repeatedly voting for former Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Election officials facing reports of “flipped” or “switched” votes have said it sometimes is user error, and when voters bring it to their attention, officials make sure voters can cast ballots with their desired choices.

That’s what happened in Tarrant County, Texas, when one person out of more than 100,000 voters reported having a vote for Trump changed to Harris when the ballot was printed. Local election officials said the voting machines are not flipping candidates and suggested the voter made a mistake when selecting preferred candidates.That ballot was destroyed and the voter was allowed to vote again.

An October Instagram post said voting machines in Shelby County, Tennessee, were swapping votes from Harris to Trump. Election officials said there were no voting machine malfunctions. Voters had inadvertently touched the wrong area of the ballot when using the touchscreen voting machines.

Rampant noncitizen voting does not occur

Trump and his supporters have falsely claimed that Democrats are behind a scheme to lure noncitizens to the U.S. to vote in federal elections. That’s not happening. Federal law bans noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

Noncitizens sometimes land on voter rolls, often by accident when getting drivers licenses. However, voting by noncitizens in federal elections is rare. The largest case with convictions we found was in 2020 in North Carolina, when federal prosecutors charged 19 people with voter fraud after they cast ballots, mostly in the 2016 election. For context, more than 4.5 million people in North Carolina voted in the 2016 presidential election.

Claims that election officials rip up or trash ballots

If you’re an election worker committing election fraud, you probably wouldn’t film yourself opening mail ballot envelopes, calling out the votes in those ballots, cursing against one candidate and ripping up ballots marked for that candidate.

But that’s what one ridiculous viral video appears to show, leading X users to claim that mail ballots with votes for Trump are being destroyed in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Federal officials said Russian actors manufactured and amplified the video.

Claims in 2020 about large numbers of ballots found in the trash were either made up or were about spoiled ballots that were legally destroyed.

Claims that election officials sneak in “ballot dumps” late at night

It is common for one candidate to take the lead in early results but not be the winner as more ballots are counted. For example, in Pennsylvania, if it takes longer to count votes in left-leaning Philadelphia than in a more right-leaning part of the state, it’s possible that Trump could lead the state early in the night but see the margins shift later.

Trump tweeted the claim on Nov. 4, 2020, “Last night I was leading, often solidly, in many key States, in almost all instances Democrat run & controlled. Then, one by one, they started to magically disappear as surprise ballot dumps were counted.”

In some states, Trump did initially lead, only to see Biden eventually take the lead. But in other states, Biden led and Trump came back to take the lead.

There is nothing nefarious about local election officials updating results in the hours and days after polls close. In fact, it means they are counting all legitimate ballots. State laws dictate the process, including when officials can start opening mail ballots. That means it takes time to finish the count. Some states, such as Pennsylvania, don’t allow election workers to begin processing mail ballots until Election Day, while other states allow that to begin weeks earlier.

Claims that mass voter fraud in 2020 affected the election’s outcome

After the polls closed in 2020, a cascade of social media images and photos claimed to show poll workers and others committing voter fraud. But the posts mostly showed election officials doing their jobs.

The election system in our country makes such a heist both unlikely and impossibly elaborate.

“We should call this what it is: Trump laying the groundwork so he can cast doubt on the 2024 results if he doesn’t win,” Joanna Lydgate, CEO of the nonpartisan States United Democracy Center, told PolitiFact in early October.

To build a sufficient Electoral College margin, bad actors would have to collaborate across battleground states in a coordinated but secret way, with hundreds of people risking felonies for the same goal.

Pulling this off would require thousands of illegal votes. A database maintained by the conservative Heritage Foundation shows about 1,300 convictions for voter fraud over decades. During that period, there were billions of votes cast.

Claims of early victory

Speaking at the White House hours after the polls closed in 2020, Trump said, “We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list, okay? It’s a very sad moment. … And we will win this.”

There is no state or federal law that says vote counting must stop a few hours after the polls close. Election officials would have violated laws if they simply stopped counting legitimate ballots.

State laws set the certification deadline in November or December, so the official results won’t be known for weeks after Election Day. But media outlets are likely to project a winner far earlier than that.

Find more of our Vote 2024 coverage

How we know voter fraud is very rare in U.S. elections

toggle caption Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

Most Americans are concerned about voter fraud in this year’s general election.

That’s according to a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll. Much of this concern is driven by Republicans after years of former President Donald Trump and his GOP allies casting doubt on the legitimacy of U.S. elections.

But voter fraud remains a very rare occurrence across the country.

“Research has been consistent over time that voter fraud is infinitesimally rare and almost never occurs on a scale that would affect an election outcome,” said Alice Clapman, senior counsel for voting rights at the Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for expanded voter access.

Sponsor Message

And it’s not just research. Clapman said courts have also looked at this issue, as well as government commissions and prosecutorial offices.

“And the answer has overwhelmingly been throughout the years that this is extremely rare,” Clapman said. “Oftentimes courts, once they look at specific evidence, conclude that the evidence just isn’t there.”

Voter fraud charges happen, but at a very small scale

Following Trump’s false claims, leaders in Republican-run states have been ramping up investigations into alleged voter fraud. Despite the increased efforts, the number of potential instances of fraud they are actually finding amounts to a tiny fraction of the number of ballots cast in a state’s election.

In Ohio, Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose announced in 2022 his office had found 75 voters who allegedly cast a ballot in the state and another state in 2020. Almost 6 million ballots were cast in Ohio that year.

In a statement, LaRose’s office said they had referred a total of 630 cases to prosecutors “over the course of multiple elections” — while also noting “voter fraud continues to be exceedingly rare” in the state.

Also after the 2020 election, The Associated Press contacted local election officials in six swing states. In their analysis, they found 475 potential voter fraud cases — which amounts to an extraordinarily small percentage of the more than 25 million ballots that were cast in those six states.

Sponsor Message

Overall, Clapman said, there is a big gap between “the rhetoric and the actual reality” of how many instances of voter fraud some state officials identify and refer for prosecution.

“We do oftentimes see dramatic claims by state officials about voter fraud,” she said. “But what we’ve seen over the years is that investigations, for example, in Kansas and Colorado, Maine, Florida, across the political spectrum have yielded very, very small instances of actual prosecutions.”

Voter fraud vs. voting mistakes

And even when cases do make it to court, they are sometimes thrown out or face a difficult path through the legal system. This often happens, Clapman said, in cases that involve ineligible voters who voted “accidentally in good faith, believing that they were eligible.”

Clapman said a lot of these cases involve people who at one point lost their voting rights due to a felony conviction. Some examples are from Florida, where 20 formerly incarcerated people were arrested for alleged illegal voting, even though they were given voter registration cards; as well as a prominent case in Texas involving a woman named Crystal Mason who said she thought she was eligible to vote in 2016.

Clapman said conservative-leaning groups often lump all cases where the voter thought they were eligible along with cases where someone intended to commit fraud.

“These numbers don’t distinguish between, you know, an allegation that may be incorrect or a situation where someone has voted in good faith incorrectly,” she said.

States have systems to prevent someone from voting illegally

Lastly, states have a series of mechanisms to help weed out people who are ineligible to vote before they could cast a ballot.

States, by law, are required to routinely remove ineligible or deceased voters from their rolls. And there are tools like the Electronic Registration Information Center, also known as ERIC, that help states share voter data.

Sponsor Message

Depending on the type of voting — in-person vs. mail-in — there are also a host of protections that would keep someone from casting a ballot that isn’t theirs, or from voting altogether if they are ineligible. That includes things like signature matching, drop box surveillance, as well as poll worker training.

“States have very effective protections in place to prevent and detect voter fraud,” Clapman said. “And then it is always important to be reminded that the penalty for voter fraud is enormous.”

Maxim Shemetov / Pool Reuters via AP South African President Cyril Ramaphosa arrives at a BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, on Oct. 23.

Africans woke up to the news that former President Donald Trump was on course to win the U.S. election, with newspaper headlines raising questions over what it could mean for the continent.

“America elects Donald Trump president, spelling change for [South Africa] and the world,” one headline on popular South African media website News24 read.

By lunchtime as the results continued to roll in and Trump made his victory speech, African leaders were congratulating the president-elect.

“I look forward to continuing the close and mutually beneficial partnership between our two nations across all domains of our cooperation,” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said in a statement.

“In the global arena, we look forward to our Presidency of the G20 in 2025, where we will work closely with the US who will succeed us in the G20 Presidency in 2026,” Ramaphosa, who leads the continent’s most developed economy, continued.

The office of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu also posted congratulations on X, saying he believed Trump’s return to the White House would “usher in an era of earnest, beneficial, and reciprocal economic and development partnerships between Africa and the United States.”

The platform many used to share election news is itself owned by someone born in Africa: Elon Musk, who grew up in Pretoria, South Africa, before becoming a U.S. citizen. Musk, who owns X, has been a vocal supporter of Trump — who thanked him in his victory speech.

Many in Africa had been following the election closely with the knowledge that U.S. politics have knock-on effects across the globe, in terms of conflicts, trade, economics and social issues.

South African cartoonist Zapiro summed up the anxiety some were feeling with a cartoon in a local paper that showed a number of hideous Halloween monster masks, titled “Kinda scary,” juxtaposed to a Trump mask titled “Truly terrifying.”

The South African currency the rand tanked on the election news.

Trump raised ire in Africa during his last presidency after U.S. officials said he referred to some African nations as “shithole countries” and for Trump’s mispronouncing Namibia’s name and comparing himself to liberation hero Nelson Mandela.

However, he is popular with some Africans who have said they admire his “strongman” style.

Analysts said ahead of the vote that an “America First” Trump presidency could spell bad news for the continent in terms of global trade as well as U.S. funding for health, especially reproductive rights and HIV/AIDS.

Others said it mattered less who was in charge of the U.S., given U.S. leaders from both parties have paid scant attention to Africa. This has left room for other global powers, like China and Russia, to make diplomatic inroads on the continent, analysts said.

This tracker provides a summary of the litigation brought around the country to challenge congressional and legislative maps drawn after the 2020 census.

Where Maps Have Been Challenged

As of May 12, 2025, congressional and/or legislative maps around the country have been challenged in a total of 88 cases. Of these cases, 52 challenged congressional maps and 52 raised challenges to legislative maps.

All told, maps in 28 states have been challenged.

The vast majority of cases – 72 of 88 – seek changes to maps originally drawn under single-party control of the redistricting process.

Maps drawn under unified Republican control of the process seen , by far, the most challenges, with total of 61 cases contending that GOP-crafted maps were either racially or politically discriminatory (or both).

By contrast, only 11 cases challenged maps drawn under unified Democratic control. In addition, 7 cases challenged maps drawn by bipartisan political commissions, 3 cases – all in Michigan – challenged maps adopted by an independent redistricting commission, and 3 cases – all in Wisconsin – challenged a map put in place by a court.

Regionally, the South accounts for half of all challenges to maps filed to date, with Midwest/Great Plains states accounting for another quarter. With nine cases, fast-growing and rapidly diversifying Texas has seen more challenges to its maps this redistricting cycle than any other state.

The Claims Being Asserted

In a sign that state courts and constitutions are becoming more important, this decade’s cases are split roughly evenly between state and federal court, a change from last decade when the overwhelming bulk of challenges to maps were in federal court.

Broken down by legal theory, cases to date include:

40 cases asserting state-law partisan gerrymandering claims (19 challenging congressional maps, 16 legislative maps, and 5 both);

25 cases asserting federal racial gerrymandering claims (8 challenging congressional maps, 11 legislative maps, and 6 both);

17 cases asserting intentional race discrimination claims under the U.S. Constitution (7 challenging congressional maps, 3 legislative maps, and7 both);

30 cases asserting claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (10 challenging congressional maps, 11 legislative maps, and 9 both), and

7 cases asserting race-based claims under state constitutions (3 challenging congressional maps, 3 challenging legislative maps, and 1 challenging both congressional and legislative maps).

All told, 49 cases raised allegations of race discrimination, including alleged Section 2 violations.

In addition, a handful of cases also raised legal challenges based on the alleged non-compliance of maps with one or more procedural or substantive requirements in state redistricting law, such a requirement that districts be contiguous.

Broken down by state, 14 states have seen their congressional maps challenged as partisan gerrymanders, 9 as intentionally racially discriminatory, 9 as racial gerrymanders, and 8 as violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, while 11 states have had legislative maps challenged as partisan gerrymanders, 5 as intentionally racially discriminatory, 13 as racial gerrymanders, and 12 as violations of Section 2.

The chart below summarizes claims made to date by type and state:

All but one of this decade’s legal cases have been brought by individual voters, civil rights organizations, or good government groups. The one exception is the U.S. Department of Justice’s now voluntarily dismissed challenge to Texas’s congressional and legislative maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Of the cases asserting race-based constitutional claims and/or violations of the Voting Rights Act:

29 involve claims by Black voters or organizations,

14 involve claims by Latino voters or organizations,

2 involve claims by Native American voters or federally recognized tribes,

9 involve claims by multiracial coalitions of Black, Latino, and/or Asian voters;

2 involve claims by white voters (both attacking districts created to comply obligations under the Voting Rights Act). Of the cases asserting claims of partisan gerrymandering, 28 contended that maps were biased in favor of Republicans and 13 contended that maps were biased in favor of Democrats.

The Status of Litigation

As of this update, litigation over congressional maps in 10 states and legislative maps in 9 states remain pending at either the trial or appellate levels.

Of the 38 cases that are not yet fully resolved, 32 are in federal court and 6 are in state court. Five open cases, in Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin assert partisan-gerrymandering or malapportionment related claims. The remaining 33 still pending cases challenge maps under various theories of race discrimination under federal or state law.

The following cases have scheduled upcoming trials, key hearings, or appellate arguments:

To date, this decade’s litigation has resulted in maps being redrawn under court order in 13 states – 3 states where congressional maps were redrawn, 6 where legislative maps were redrawn, and 4 where both congressional and legislative maps were redrawn.

There has been one notable case of retreat, though. In North Carolina, rulings of the state supreme court put in place new, fairer congressional and legislative maps for the 2022 elections. However, subsequent judicial elections made the composition of the state supreme court more conservative, prompting Republican legislative leaders to ask the court to reverse its earlier anti-gerrymandering rulings. The court did so, and, in late 2023, the legislature again enacted gerrymandered congressional and legislative maps.

Likewise, although congressional and legislative maps were redrawn under court order in Georgia and Ohio, advocates in both states contend that the new maps either did not fully remedy violations or created new legal infirmities. Litigation over maps in Ohio has concluded, but an appeal remains pending over approval of Georgia’s new maps over the objections of Black voters.

Alabama

Racial discrimination

Congressional: Three cases filed by Black voters and civil rights organizations challenged Alabama’s congressional map in federal court, contending that the map was racially discriminatory in violation of the U.S. Constitution and/or Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: Caster v. Allen, No. 2:21-CV-1536 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2021) (Section 2 claim), Milligan v. Allen, No. 2:21-CV-1530 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2021) (Section 2, intentional race discrimination, and racial gerrymandering claims), and Singleton v. Allen, No. 2:21-CV-1291 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 27, 2021) (intentional race discrimination and racial gerrymandering claims).

On January 24, 2022, the judges in the three cases blocked the map on a preliminary basis, finding that the map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. However, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the ruling until it could hear an appeal in the case.

On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the panel’s ruling preliminarily enjoining the map, finding that the lower court “faithfully applied [Supreme Court] precedents and correctly determined that, under existing law,” the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In response, Alabama redrew the map but did so in a way the court found failed to adequately remedy the Voting Rights Act violation found by the court. As a result, the court appointed a special master, who redrew the map for the 2024 election.

In February 2025, the court held a trial determine whether the court’s invalidation of the 2023 map for the 2024 election cycle should be made permanent. The February 2025 trial included consideration of both VRA and non-VRA claims asserted in the three now consolidated cases.

On May 8, 2025, the court ruled that the 2023 map, like the 2021 map, ran afoul of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by limiting Black voters’ opportunity to elect candidates to one district. In addition, the court ruled that the Alabama legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters when it adopted the 2023 map

The court will start a remedial process this summer to put in place a permanent congressional map for Alabama. This summer, the court also will begin the process of considering plaintiffs’ requests to place Alabama back under preclearance coverage using Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act in light of the court’s intentional discrimination ruling.

Legislative: A lawsuit by Black voters and two civil rights organizations, Stone v. Allen, No. 2:21-CV-1531 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2021), contends that Alabama’s state senate map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for failing to create two additional Black majority districts, one in the Huntsville region of the state and one in the Montgomery region. The plaintiffs originally also raised racial gerrymandering claims and challenged the configuration of Alabama’s state house maps, but dropped all non-VRA claims as well as claims regarding the state house with filing of an amended complaint in December 2023.

The district court held a bench trial in the Stone case in November 2024 but has not yet ruled on the claims.

Alaska

Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering

Legislative: Five state-court lawsuits filed contended that Alaska’s new legislative maps were racially discriminatory under the U.S. Constitution and/or Alaska Constitution, an illegal partisan gerrymander under the Alaska Constitution, or violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:

Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 3PA-21–02397CI (Alaska Super. Ct. Dec. 2, 2021) (federal and state equal protection violations due to excessive division of municipal voters; violations of various state-law redistricting criteria), Wilson v. Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 3AN-21–08869CI (Alaska Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 2021) (federal due process and state equal protection violations due to “egregiously irrational and arbitrary” pairings of communities; violation of state-law contiguity requirement), City of Valdez v. Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 3VA-21–00080CI (Alaska Super. Ct. Dec. 10, 2021) (state due process and equal protection violations due to joining together of dissimilar communities and separation of socio-economically integrated communities; violation of various state-law redistricting criteria), Calista Corporation v. Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 4BE-21–00372CI (Alaska Super. Ct. Dec. 10, 2021) (violation of state redistricting criteria; violation of state equal protection clause; ; Section 2 violations), and Skagway Borough v. The Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 1JU-21–00944CI (Alaska Super. Ct. Dec. 13, 2021) (state-law due process and equal protection claims related to joining together of dissimilar communities; violation of various state-law redistricting criteria).

The suits alleged that the maps intentionally dilute the voting power of those who live within Alaska’s lowest-income and most racially diverse parts of the state by pairing groups of voters in Anchorage, Valdez, Skagway, Calista, Matanuska-Susitna, and the surrounding areas that have little in common. The Alaska Superior Court consolidated the five cases into a single proceeding.

On February 15, 2022, a trial court held that the board had violated the Alaska Constitution when drawing the new legislative maps, holding, among other things, that the map intentionally discriminated against East Anchorage residents who do not support Republican candidates.

After the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s gerrymandering rulings, the board enacted a revised legislative plan on April 13, 2022.

However, several plaintiffs from the original lawsuits as well as plaintiffs who intervened after the Alaska Supreme Court rendered its ruling objected before the trial court, contending that the redrawn state senate map continued to be a partisan gerrymander,

On May 16, 2022, the trial court agreed with the objectors and held that the revised state senate map was also a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Alaska Constitution. The court implemented an interim map for the 2022 election cycle but remanded the matter back to the board to adopt a remedial map for the rest of the decade.

On May 24, 2022, the Alaska Supreme Court rejected the board’s appeal as to whether it once again gerrymandered the senate map, upholding the trial court’s order implementing an interim senate plan for the 2022 election cycle.

On April 21, 2023, the Court issued an opinion further explaining its reasoning, declaring that “we expressly recognize that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the Alaska Constitution.” The Court then held that splitting the Anchorage area into two senate districts violated Alaska equal protection doctrine as an “unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.”

Arkansas

Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering

Congressional: In Arkansas, three groups of Black voters filed cases challenging the state’s congressional map, one group in state court, Suttlar v. Thurston, No. 60CV-22–1849 (Ark. Cir. Ct. Mar. 21, 2022), and two in federal court, Simpson v. Thurston, No. 4:22-CV-213 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 7, 2022) and Christian Ministerial Alliance v. Thurston, No. 4:23-CV-471 (E.D. Ark. May 23, 2023).

While the legal theories in the three cases differ, all three are rooted in the division of Black voters in Pulaski County – the state’s largest county and home of Little Rock – among three of the state’s four congressional districts.

In the state-court Suttlar case, the plaintiffs contended that the division of Black communities in Pulaski County violated both the state constitution’s Free and Equal Elections Clause and its Equal Protection Clause. However, in May 2023, the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that the Arkansas Constitution requires the plaintiffs to have filed their complaint in the Arkansas Supreme Court. The Suttlar plaintiffs have not sought further judicial relief.

In the Simpson case in federal court, plaintiffs challenged the map for alleged violations of both the Voting Rights Act and the state and federal constitutions. But on May 25, 2023, a three-judge panel, likewise, dismissed the case after concluding that the plaintiffs legal theories required them to show that race was the “predominant factor” underlying the legislature’s adoption of the new congressional map and that they had failed to plausible inference of such motivation The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, but on June 3, 2024, the high court sent the case back to the trial court for reconsideration in light the Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander v. South Carolina Conference of the NAACP. After briefing, the three-judge panel entered an order on September 11, 2024, holding that Alexander did not affect its earlier.

Lastly, in the Christian Ministerial Alliance case, also in federal court, Black voters contend that the Arkansas congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and also intentionally discriminates against Black voters in violation of Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. A three-judge panel heard argument on the state defendants’ motion for summary judgment in December 2024, but has not yet ruled.

Legislative: Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, No. 4:21-CV-1239 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 29, 2021), which was filed on behalf of Black voters in federal court, contends that the state house map enacted by the Arkansas Board of Apportionment is violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The suit alleges that the map intentionally perpetuates a long history of discrimination against Black voters by packing and cracking them, thereby diluting their political power. Although the Black community constitutes 16.5 percent of Arkansas’s population, only 11 percent of state house districts are Black majority.

On February 17, 2022, a federal judge declined to hear the case, holding that Section 2 does not provide a private right of action and dismissed the case. On November 20, 2023, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling regarding the lack of a private right of action. The plaintiffs asked the entire the Eighth Circuit to review the decision, but the circuit declined. The plaintiffs have decided not to seek further review of the decision at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Florida

Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering

Congressional: Three lawsuits to date have raised legal challenges to Florida’s congressional map, one in state court and one in federal court.

In state court, Black Voters Matter v. Byrd, No. 2022-CA-000666 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Apr. 22, 2022) initially contended that the new congressional map enacted by the Florida legislature was both racially discriminatory and a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Florida Constitution.

However, in August 2023, the plaintiffs entered into a stipulation with the state defendants dropping their partisan gerrymandering challenge and limiting their race-based challenges to their claim that the dismantling of state’s Fifth Congressional District was discriminated against Black voters under the anti-retrogression standard in the Fair Districts constitutional amendments approved by Florida voters in 2012.

In September 2023, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the ruling was stayed pending appeal.

On December 1, 2023, an intermediate appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the Fair Districts amendments required the plaintiffs to show the existence of a geographically compact minority community, which, the court found, they had failed to do.

The plaintiffs appealed the intermediate appellate court’s ruling to the Florida Supreme Court, which accepted the case but declined to the plaintiffs’ request to expedite consideration of the case. The Florida Supreme Court heard oral argument in the appeal for September 12, 2024.

In federal court, Common Cause v. Byrd, No. 4:22-CV-109 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2022) contends that Florida’s new congressional map intentionally discriminates against Black voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution by dismantling an effective crossover district in northern Florida.

After a trial, a three-judge panel ruled against the Byrd plaintiffs on March 27, 2024. The plaintiffs have asked the district court to reconsider its ruling, but the district court declined to do so. On July 11, 2024, the plaintiffs indicated that they would not seek review of the ruling at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Finally, a second federal court lawsuit, Cubanos Pa’Lante v. Florida House of Representatives, No. 1:24-cv-21983 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2024), brought on behalf of Latino voters and organizations, contended that four congressional districts in South Florida were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders under the federal constitution. However, the plaintiffs subsequently amended their claims to challenge only one congressional district: FL-26.

The court in the Cubanos Pa’Lante case has scheduled the start of trial in the case for January 12, 2026.

Legislative: In addition to challenging the congressional map, the Cubanos Pa’Lante case also contends that seven state house districts in South Florida are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders under the federal constitution.

Trial on the legislative claims in the Cubanos Pa’Lante case is scheduled to start January 12, 2026.

A separate federal court lawsuit, Hodges v. Albritton, No. 8:24-CV-879 (M.D. Fla. 2024) challenges the redrawing of two adjacent state senate districts in the Tampa Bay region, contending that both districts are now unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. On March 31, 2025, a three-judge panel granted summary judgment in favor of the state defendants with respect to one of the challenged districts but denied summary judgment with respect to the other district. Trial on the racial gerrymandering claims related to the remaining district will start June 9, 2025.

Georgia

Racial discrimination

Congressional: This decade, Black voters challenged Georgia’s congressional map in three cases contending that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and/or the U.S. Constitution.

The cases are Common Cause v. Raffensperger, No. 1:22-CV-90 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 7, 2022) (racial gerrymandering claims by good government groups and Black voters), Pendergrass v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-CV-5339 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2021) (Section 2 vote dilution claims by Black voters) and Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. State of Georgia, No. 1:21-CV-5338 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2021) (intentional race discrimination and Section 2 vote dilution claims on behalf of Black, Latino, and Asian voters).

In fall 2023, the district court held a trial that was limited to the Voting Rights Act claim in the Pendergrass case, and on October 26, 2023, issued an opinion holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required the map to be redrawn to add an additional Black majority congressional district in the western part of the Metro Atlanta region. The Georgia legislature complied with the ruling converting GA-06 into a majority Black district but in the process dismantled a nearby majority non-white district, GA-07, thereby leaving the number of minority opportunity districts the same.

Although the plaintiffs objected to the dismantling of GA-07, the court overruled the objections and approved the remedial map, holding that the new map complied with the court’s order with respect to western Metro Atlanta and that any claims with respect to the dismantled GA-07 would have to be brought in a separate proceeding.

The state defendants have appealed the underlying finding of Section 2 liability to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the plaintiffs, in turn, have appealed from the court’s approval of the remedial map. On appeal, the state defendants also are raising arguments concerning the constitutionality of Section 2 and arguing that the Voting Rights Act does not provide a private right of action.

The court has put the claims in the Common Cause and Georgia NAACP cases on hold until resolution of appeals in the Pendergrass case. The Eleventh Circuit held oral argument in the state defendants’ appeal in the Pendergrass case on January 23, 2025, and will hold oral arguments in plaintiffs’ appeal during the week of May 12, 2025.

Legislative: The Georgia NAACP lawsuit and two additional cases Grant v. Raffensperger, No. 1:22-CV-122 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2022) (Section 2 vote dilution claims by Black voters) and Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-CV-5337 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2021) (Section 2 vote dilution claims by Black voters) also contended that Georgia’s legislative maps needed to be redrawn.

The district court held a trial on the Voting Rights Act claims asserted in the Grant and Alpha Phi Alpha cases in Fall 2023, and October 26, 2023, struck down both maps, ordering the state senate map to be redrawn to create two additional Black majority districts in southern Metro Atlanta and five additional Black majority districts in various parts of the state.

The Georgia legislature redrew the maps to create additional Black majority legislative districts, but the plaintiffs objected to the new maps, contending that they did not adequately remedy the violations found by the court. However, after a hearing, the court overruled the objections.

As in the congressional case, the state defendants have appealed the underlying finding of Section 2 liability to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the plaintiffs, in turn, have appealed from the court’s approval of the remedial map. On appeal, the state defendants also are raising arguments concerning the constitutionality of Section 2 and arguing that the Voting Rights Act does not provide a private right of action. As with the congressional case, the Eleventh Circuit held oral argument in the state defendants’ appeal in the Alpha Phi Alpha and Grant cases on January 23, 2025, and will hold oral arguments in plaintiffs’ appeals during the week of May 12, 2025.

Illinois

Racial discrimination

Legislative: After Illinois adopted new legislative maps following the 2020 census, Black and Latino voters as well as Republican legislative leaders challenged the maps in federal court in three separate suits, contending that the maps passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature were racial gerrymanders or intentionally racially discriminatory in violation of the U.S. Constitution or, alternatively, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: McConchie v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 1:21-CV-3091 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 9, 2021) (Republican legislative leaders; intentional race discrimination, Section 2 vote dilution), East St. Louis Branch NAACP v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 1:21-CV-5512 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2021) (Black-led organizations; racial gerrymandering, Section 2 vote dilution), and Contreras v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 1:21-CV-3139 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 10, 2021) (Latino voters and organizations; racial gerrymandering, Section 2 vote dilution).

The district court consolidated the cases into a single proceeding, and on December 30, 2021, a three-judge panel rejected both race discrimination and Voting Rights Act claims in all three cases, finding that partisanship—rather than race—predominated in the configuration of the challenged districts and that plaintiffs did not otherwise establish a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. No party sought to appeal the decision.

Kansas

Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering

Congressional: Three state-court cases by Black, Latino, and Democratic voters and a civil rights organization, challenged Kansas’ congressional, contending that the new map enacted by the Republican-controlled Kansas legislature is racially discriminatory or, in the alternative, a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Kansas Constitution: Frick v. Schwab, No. 2022-CV-71 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Mar. 1, 2022) (partisan gerrymandering), Alonzo v. Schwab, No. 2022-CV-90 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Feb. 14, 2022) (partisan gerrymandering, intentional race discrimination, racial vote dilution)and Rivera v. Schwab, No. 2022-CV-89 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Feb. 14, 2022) (partisan gerrymandering and racial vote dilution).

On April 25, 2022, a trial court struck down the legislature’s new congressional map, finding that the map was both an extreme partisan gerrymander and racially discriminatory in violation of the Kansas Constitution.

However, on May 18, 2022, a majority of the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the trial court. The court’s opinion held that Kansas courts lack the jurisdiction to hear claims of partisan gerrymandering since there is no “judicially discoverable and manageable standard in Kansas law that will guide a court in resolving” such claims. The decision also held that the plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish the legislature discriminated on the basis of race when drawing the map.

On August 26, 2022, the Kansas Supreme Court summarily denied the plaintiffs’ motion to rehear their claims that the congressional map is racially discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently also declined to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal of the case.

Kentucky

Partisan gerrymandering

Congressional and legislative: Graham v. Adams, No. 22-CI-47 (Ky. Cir. Ct. Jan. 20, 2022), which was filed in state court on behalf of Kentucky voters, a state representative, and the Kentucky Democratic Party, contended that the new congressional and state house maps approved by the Kentucky legislature are extreme partisan gerrymanders in violation of the Kentucky Constitution.

The suit alleged that the maps, which were enacted via an override of the governor’s veto, intentionally dilute the voting power of Kentucky’s Democratic voters by packing and cracking such voters throughout the state. The plaintiffs contend that, to achieve the gerrymanders, the legislature drew districts that are irregularly shaped. As an example, “someone driving from Lexington to Louisville would cross five of the state’s [six] congressional districts, but it would take over four hours to get from one side of the First District to the other.”

On November 10, 2022, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that the Kentucky Constitution does not expressly prohibit partisan gerrymandering even though the court concluded that –factually – both congressional and state house maps were, in fact, partisan gerrymanders. On appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, the state high court affirmed the decision of the trial court in a decision issued on December 14, 2023. The decision held that although partisan gerrymandering claims were justiciable under the state constitution, the maps did not violate any of the provisions invoked by the plaintiffs.

Louisiana

Racial discrimination

Congressional: After adoption of a new congressional map, Black voters challenged the map in two lawsuits, Galmon v. Landry, No. 3:22-CV-214 (M.D. La. Mar. 30, 2022), and Robinson v. Landry, No. 3:22-CV-211 (M.D. La. Mar. 30, 2022).

The suits contended that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by giving Black voters the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice in only 1 of 6 districts, despite the fact that Black Louisianians now make up over 30 percent of the state’s voting age population. Had a VRA-compliant map been drawn, the plaintiffs alleged that Black voters were sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to be a majority in two congressional districts.

The district court consolidated the two cases and in June 2022, granted a preliminary injunction blocking Louisiana from using its newly enacted congressional map for the 2022 elections. However, the Supreme Court put the ruling on hold until the high court heard and resolved Allen v. Milligan, a similar case from Alabama.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Milligan, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the ruling enjoining the Louisiana map and gave Louisiana lawmakers until January 30, 2024, to pass a new map with a second Black congressional district. To the surprise of some, Louisiana lawmakers complied with the ruling, redrawing LA-06, the current district of Republican Garrett Graves, to be a Black majority district running between Baton Rouge to Shreveport. However, a new phase of legal fights over Louisiana’s congressional map began immediately thereafter when a group of white voters filed Callais v. Landry, No. 3:24-CV-00122 (W.D. La. January 31, 2024), in a different federal district court, contending that the configuration of LA-06 in the remedial map resulted in an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The three-judge panel agreed, striking down the new district in a decision on April 30, 2024. However, the Supreme Court subsequently stayed the ruling pending appeal. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case on March 24, 2025 and is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June.

Legislative: Black Louisiana voters also are challenging the state’s legislative maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, contending in Nairne v. Landry, No. 3:22-CV-178 (M.D. La. Mar. 14, 2022) that the state house map should contain between six and nine additional Black opportunity districts, while the state senate map should include three such additional districts.

After a trial, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on February 8, 2024, finding that additional Black-majority state house and state senate districts could be created in various regions of Louisiana. However, the court’s order was silent as to the schedule for redrawing maps. The plaintiffs have asked the court to order special legislative elections for 2024, noting that the next scheduled election for the Louisiana Legislature is not until 2027. The district court declined to do so at this time, but set a deadline of June 4, 2024, for the legislature to adopt new maps. Because the legislature did not meet this deadline, the court has begun the process of putting in place court-drawn remedial maps, with a hearing on remedial maps set to start August 25, 2025. In the meantime, the state defendants have appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit, which heard oral argument in the case on January 7, 2025, but has not yet ruled.

Maryland

Partisan gerrymandering

Congressional: Two now-concluded state-court cases filed by registered Republicans challenged Maryland’s congressional map, contending that the map was an extreme partisan gerrymander that violated the Maryland constitution: Szeliga v. Lamone, No. C-02-CV-21–001816 (Md. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2021), and Parrott v. Lamone, No. C-02-CV-21–001773 (Md. Cir. Ct. Dec. 21, 2021). The court consolidated the two cases for proceedings.

On March 25, 2022, the trial court struck down Maryland’s new congressional map, ruling that the map “is an ‘outlier,’ an extreme gerrymander that subordinates constitutional criteria to political considerations.” The court ordered the legislature to adopt a revised map, which the legislature did on March 30, 2022. The governor then signed the plan into law, and the state’s attorney general subsequently announced that the state was ending its appeal.

After adoption of the remedial congressional map, a third case —Alban v. Lamone, Misc. No. 30 (Md. Feb. 25, 2022)—also contended that the map was an extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the Maryland Constitution. The suit alleged that the Maryland legislature gerrymandered the map so that Democrats could sweep all eight of the state’s congressional seats (even though the state’s lone GOP district—MD-01—currently leans safely Republican). According to the petitioners, state legislators made MD-01 competitive by “egregiously” changing the boundaries of the district so that it “reach[es] across the Chesapeake Bay and far inland to grab suburban voters in Anne Arundel County.”

On March 1, 2022, the Maryland Court of Appeals summarily declined to hear the petitioners’ claims.

Legislative: Several petitions filed In re: 2022 Legislative Districting of the State, Misc. Nos. 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 (Md. Feb. 3, 2022), contended that Maryland’s new legislative plan is an extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the Maryland constitution.

The suits, which were filed in the Maryland Court of Appeals, alleged that the plan intentionally diluted the voting power of the state’s Republican voters. For example, the plaintiffs alleged that the plan packed Republican voters into District 31, which unnecessarily “includes a barbell-shaped part of Anne Arundel County” to protect a Democratic incumbent serving another district.

On April 13, 2022, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied the petitioners’ claims. The Court concluded that the remedial legislative plan did not violate state constitutional provisions requiring that districts be compact, contiguous, and have due regard for natural boundaries. It also determined that the plan’s use of both single- and multi-member districts did not violate the Maryland or federal constitutions. Finally, it held that neither the Maryland nor federal constitutions “require that the plan include three one-member delegate subdistricts in District 2 simply because the district crossed a county line.”

Michigan

Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering

Congressional and legislative: Three cases this decade have challenged Michigan’s congressional and/or legislative maps.

Detroit Caucus v. Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, No. 163926 (Mich. Sup. Ct. Jan. 5, 2022), which was filed in the Michigan Supreme Court on behalf of the Detroit members of the Michigan House of Representatives (the “Detroit Caucus”), two city councils, and Black voters, contended that the new congressional and legislative maps enacted by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission violated the Michigan Constitution by not complying with the Voting Rights Act.

On February 3, 2022, a 4–3 majority of the Michigan Supreme Court dismissed the Detroit Caucus lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to submit any analysis of racial bloc voting to the Court. Additionally, the commission’s racial bloc-voting analysis indicated that, even in the absence of districts that were 50 percent or more minority, a sufficient number of white voters have supported Black-preferred candidates such that Black voters have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

A separate lawsuit, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, No. 164022 (Mich. Sup. Ct. Feb. 1, 2022), which was filed in the Michigan Supreme Court on behalf of nonprofit organizations and Michigan voters, contended that the new state house map enacted by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission is a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Michigan Constitution.

On March 25, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court summarily dismissed the League of Women Voters lawsuit, stating that the Court was “not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.”

In addition to the two state-court suits, a lawsuit in federal court, Agee v. Benson, No. 1:22-CV-272 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2022), contended that the legislative maps enacted by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and were racial gerrymanders in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

On December 21, 2023, a three-judge panel issued an opinion ruling that both Michigan’s state house and state senate maps were racial gerrymanders and ordering that several Detroit area state house and state senate districts be redrawn. Because the maps had been struck down on racial gerrymandering grounds, the opinion said the court would not address the plaintiffs’ Voting Rights Act claims.

On March 27, 2024, the panel approved the redrawn state house map adopted by the state’s redistricting commission, and on July 26, 2024, approved the redrawn state senate map.

Mississippi

Racial discrimination

Legislative: Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP v. State Board of Election Commissioners, No. 3:22-CV-734 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 20, 2022), filed in federal district court on behalf of Black voters and a Black civil rights organization, contends that the Mississippi’s state house and state senate maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and additionally that several districts are a racial gerrymanders under the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs allege that the maps intentionally perpetuate a long history of discrimination against Black voters by packing them into certain areas and cracking others among multiple districts, thereby diluting Black political power. According to the plaintiffs, the maps dilute Black voting strength even though Mississippi has the largest Black population of any state and all of the state’s population growth last decade occurred within communities of color. The plaintiffs contend that the legislative maps fail to include at least four additional Black opportunity state senate districts and at least three additional Black opportunity state house districts.

A three-judge panel held trial in the case in March 2024, and ruled on July 2, 2024, that two state senate districts and one state house district violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. However, the panel rejected the plaintiffs’ racial gerrymandering claims finding that they had not established that race had predominated in the drawing of the maps. On July 18, 2024, the court entered an order giving the legislature until the end of its 2025 regular session to redraw the maps. Mississippi did not seek review of the decision by the Supreme Court.

The legislature redrew the maps in March 2025, but the Black plaintiffs who brought the case objected to the new maps contending that they did not fully remedy the vote dilution found by the court with respect to the state senate map. The court sustained the objections and, on May 7, 2025, adopted an alternative remedial map for use in this year’s special elections.

Missouri

Racial discrimination

Congressional: Filed by an individual Black voter, Berry v. Ashcroft, No. 4:22-CV-465 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 22, 2022), contended that Missouri’s new congressional map is a racial gerrymander in violation of the U.S. Constitution because it packs St. Louis-area Black voters into the state’s First Congressional District.

On July 8, 2022, a three-judge panel dismissed the plaintiff’s claim after concluding that enjoining the new congressional map plan at this stage would significantly disrupt the impending 2022 election cycle. The court expressed no opinion on whether the map violated the U.S. Constitution.

Nevada

Partisan gerrymandering

Legislative: Koenig v. Nevada, No. 210C001661B (Nev. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 2021), which was filed in state court by Republican voters and Elko County contended that Nevada’s new legislative maps are an extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the Nevada Constitution.

The suit alleges that the maps intentionally dilute the voting power of Nevada’s Republican and independent voters by packing and cracking such voters throughout the state. As an example, the complaint points to the Assembly map’s splitting of the rural town of Pahrump into two districts, causing some of the town’s rural voters to be lumped together with urban voters (even though the suit says the two groups share almost nothing in common).

In March 2022, the state district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction holding that the plaintiffs had “not identified a clear standard for adjudicating partisan redistricting claims within the Nevada Constitution, Nevada statute, or a Nevada Supreme Court opinion” and also holding that, in any event, it was too late in the election cycle for injunctive relief. That June, the plaintiffs subsequently stipulated to voluntary dismissal of their lawsuit.

New Hampshire

Partisan gerrymandering

Legislative: Brown v. Scanlan, No. 226–2022-CV-00181 (N.H. Super. Ct. May 6, 2022), which was filed on behalf of Democratic voters, contended that the New Hampshire legislature’s new state senate map is an extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the New Hampshire Constitution.

The suit alleged that the map intentionally diluted the voting power of New Hampshire’s Democratic voters by packing and cracking them throughout the state.

On October 5, 2022, a trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that courts only had the power to enforce the express redistricting requirements of the New Hampshire Constitution, none of which address partisan gerrymandering.

The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which on December 5, 2023, affirmed the decision of the trial court and held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable under state law.

New Jersey

Partisan gerrymandering

Congressional: Steinhardt v. New Jersey Redistricting Commission, No. 086587 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Dec. 30, 2021), which was filed by the Republican members of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission before the state supreme court, contends that the commission’s new congressional map is a partisan gerrymander in violation of the New Jersey Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

The New Jersey commission consists of 13 members: six appointees from each of New Jersey’s two largest political parties and one independent member. The suit alleges that the commission’s independent member cast the tiebreaking vote in favor of the Democratic members’ map because a Republican map had been adopted during the previous redistricting cycle. According to the plaintiffs, the new map is invalid because its ratification was contingent upon the independent member’s flawed reasoning in approving the map.

On February 3, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, concluding that the scope of its review for an apportionment challenge under the New Jersey Constitution is limited to allegations of unlawfulness and invidious discrimination (neither of which the plaintiffs had contended).

New Mexico

Partisan gerrymandering

Congressional: Republican Party of New Mexico v. Oliver, No. D-506-CV-202200041 (N.M. Dist. Ct. Jan. 21, 2022), which was filed on behalf of the New Mexico Republican Party and New Mexico voters, contends that the state’s congressional map is a partisan gerrymander in violation of the New Mexico Constitution.

The suit alleged that the map intentionally dilutes the voting power of Republican voters through cracking in the southeastern part of the state. Under the old map, Republican voters in southeastern New Mexico were grouped within a single congressional district. By contrast, under the new map, those voters are now split among all three of the state’s congressional districts. After a trial court declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, the state defendants requested that the New Mexico Supreme Court assume jurisdiction over the case, which the Court granted.

On July 5, 2023, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering are justiciable under the state constitution and set out a standard for adjudicating such claims. It also ordered the trial court to determine whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims and, if they do, to hold a trial to determine whether the state legislature’s new congressional map violates the New Mexico Constitution.

After further proceedings on remand, the trial court ruled on October 6, 2023, that the map did not violate the New Mexico Constitution. While the court found that the Democratic-controlled legislature had attempted to entrench their state’s Second Congressional District, evidence suggested they had succeeded only creating a competitive district that could be won by either a Democrat or a Republican. As a result, the court held the map did not result in an “egregious” gerrymander under the standard set by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which affirmed the ruling of the district court on November 27, 2023.

New York

Partisan gerrymandering

Congressional and legislative: Harkenrider v. Hochul, No. E2022–0116CV (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 3, 2022), filed in state court on behalf of New York voters, contended that the state’s new congressional and state senate maps are extreme partisan gerrymanders in violation of the New York Constitution and that the maps also were invalid because the process through which they were adopted ran afoul of the procedural requirements in the state constitution.

On March 31, 2022, the trial court ruled that New York’s new congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional because they had been adopted by the legislature in violation of the procedural grounds of the New York Constitution, namely the requirement that the legislature receive and vote on two sets of proposed maps from the state’s advisory redistricting commission before adopting any map not drawn by the commission. The court’s ruling also invalidated the congressional map on the ground that it was a partisan gerrymander. The court ordered the legislature to adopt a new set of “bipartisanly supported maps[,]” subject to the court’s review.

On April 21, 2022, a 3–2 majority of an intermediate appellate division partly affirmed the decision of the trial court, concluding that the new congressional map was a partisan gerrymander under the standards in New York law. However, separate 4–1 majority of the court reversed the trial court’s determination that the new congressional and legislative maps were void because the legislature did not follow the correct procedures when adopting those plans. The court ordered the legislature to adopt a revised congressional map, subject to the trial court’s review.

On April 27, 2022, a 4–3 majority of the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, upheld the intermediate court’s ruling that the congressional map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Separately, the ruling also held that both congressional and state senate maps were invalid because they had not been adopted in accordance with the procedural requirements of the New York Constitution, reversing the intermediate court.

Because of impending election-related deadlines, the Court of Appeals did not allow the legislature an opportunity to redraw the maps but instead ordered the trial court to adopt revised congressional and state senate maps with “all due haste” and the assistance of a special master.

Following the trial court’s approval of maps drawn by a special master, a different group of New York voters filed a new state court action, Hoffman v. New York State Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 904972–22 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 28, 2022), contending that the special master’s congressional map was valid only for the 2022 election and that the state constitution required the advisory commission to reconvene and submit a proposed permanent map to the legislature for consideration. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the state’s intermediate appellate division reversed, directing the commission to begin work on a proposal for a permanent congressional map for consideration by the legislature. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the intermediate court’s ruling on December 12, 2023.

Following the Harkenrider decision, the state assembly map, which had not been challenged in Harkenrider, drew a challenge from a group of voters who contended in Nichols v. Hochul, No. 154213/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2022), that the assembly map was also invalid since it had been enacted under the same unconstitutional procedure as the congressional and state senate maps. The petitioners asked the trial court to retain a special master to draw a revised state assembly plan.

On May 25, 2022, the trial court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiffs had waited too long to bring it, but on June 10, 2022, a panel of the intermediate appellate court reversed, holding that the map was invalid but declining to order a new map for the 2022 election given rapidly approaching primary elections. The opinion remanded the case to the trial to oversee the process for creating a new assembly map for the 2024 election and the balance of the decade.

On September 29, 2022, the trial court ruled that the appropriate remedy was for New York’s Independent Redistricting Commission to reconvene and submit a revised state assembly map to the state legislature. According to the court, the legislature would be able to produce its own assembly map only after it rejects—or the governor vetoes—the revised plan and the commission then submits a second amended plan.

On January 24, 2023, the state’s intermediate appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling, and no further appeals were taken.

North Carolina

Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering

Congressional and legislative: After North Carolina adopted new congressional and legislative maps following the 2020 census, Black voters, Democratic voters, and an environmental organization challenged the new maps in state court on the grounds that they were partisan gerrymanders or racially discriminatory in violation of various provisions of the North Carolina Constitution: Harper v. Hall, No. 19-CVS-12667 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2021) (partisan gerrymandering) and North Carolina League of Conservation Voters v. Hall, No. 21-CVS-15426 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 2021) (partisan gerrymandering and state claims for racial vote dilution and intentional racial discrimination).

After a trial court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, ruling on February 4, 2022, in a 4–3 decision that both the state’s congressional and legislative maps were extreme partisan gerrymanders that violated numerous democratic guarantees in the North Carolina Constitution, including its Free Elections Clause. The court’s ruling did not address the plaintiffs’ intentional race discrimination and racial vote dilution claims.

As a result of the ruling, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted new congressional and legislative maps. Although the trial court approved the new state house and state senate plans, it rejected the new congressional plan and instead ordered that the 2022 election be conducted using a congressional map drawn by court-appointed special master. The 2022 election took place using these maps.

Meanwhile, both the state and plaintiffs filed appeals seeking review of the decision in the North Carolina Supreme Court: the state seeking to overturn the trial court’s rejection of its remedial congressional map and the plaintiffs challenging the court’s approval of the state’s remedial legislative plans. After expedited argument, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued another 4–3 decision on December 16, 2022, upholding both the trial court’s approval of the legislature’s remedial state house map and its rejection of the legislature’s remedial congressional map. But the court reversed the trial court’s approval of the remedial state senate map, ruling that it continued to be an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

However, after the North Carolina Supreme Court issued its December 16 ruling, two new justices took the bench in January, giving conservative-leaning justices a majority.

The North Carolina General Assembly requested that the Court overturn its earlier partisan gerrymandering decisions, and on April 28, 2023, the court did so, ruling in a 5–2 opinion that partisan gerrymandering claims were non-justiciable under North Carolina state law.

After the Republican-controlled General Assembly subsequently redrew both the state’s congressional and legislative maps, Black North Carolina voters filed three lawsuits in federal court in late 2023, contending that the new maps were racially discriminatory in violation of the U.S. Constitution and also ran afoul of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:

Williams v. Hall, No. 1:23-CV-1057 (M.D.N.C. December 4, 2023) (intentional race discrimination, racial gerrymandering, Section 2 vote dilution in congressional map), North Carolina Conference of the NAACP v. Berger, No. 1:23-CV-1104 (M.D.N.C. December 19, 2023) (intentional race discrimination, racial gerrymandering, Section 2 vote dilution in state house and state senate maps), and Pierce v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, No. 4:23-CV-193 (E.D.N.C. November 20, 2023) (Section 2 claims with respect to state senate map).

The court in the Pierce case held a trial in the case in February 2025 but has not yet ruled. The Williams and North Carolina NAACP cases have been consolidated for trial on June 16, 2025.

In addition to the three cases challenging the new maps in federal court, a former justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court and a group of Democratic and unaffiliated voters also filed Bard v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, No. 24CV003534–910 in state court contending that redrawn congressional and legislative maps both violated the North Carolina Constitution’s guarantee of frequent and free elections. However, on June 28, 2024, a panel of three state trial judges dismissed the Bard case, holding that “the issues raised by the Plaintiffs are clearly of a political nature” that cannot be decided by courts. The Bard plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

North Dakota

Racial discrimination

Legislative: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Jaeger, No. 3:22-CV-22 (D.N.D. Feb. 7, 2022), which was filed on behalf of Native American voters and tribes in federal court, contends that the new state legislative plan enacted by the North Dakota legislature violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

According to the plaintiffs, Native American voters only have a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in two districts due to packing and cracking, whereas fairly drawn maps would enable Native American voters to elect candidates in three districts.

On November 17, 2023, the district court ruled in favor of Native American plaintiffs and gave North Dakota until December 22 to remedy the violation. After the judgment, the North Dakota Legislative Assembly, which was not a defendant in the case, sought to intervene and asked for an extension of time to enact a remedial map. However, the district court denied its requests, and after North Dakota failed to adopt a new map by the deadline set by the court, the court entered an order on January 8, 2024, adopting a map proposed by Native American plaintiffs as the state’s new legislative map. The North Dakota Legislative Assembly appealed the district court’s ruling to the Eighth Circuit, which heard oral argument in the case on October 22, 2024 but has not yet ruled.

A second lawsuit, Walen v. Burgum, No. 1:22-CV-31 (D.N.D. Feb. 16, 2022), which was filed on behalf of two white North Dakota voters, contends that the new state legislative plan enacted by the North Dakota legislature is a racial gerrymander in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The suit alleged that the legislature predominantly relied on race when drawing two Native American opportunity subdistricts without adequate justification.

On November 2, 2023, the three-judge panel responsible for the Walen case grantedsummary judgment for North Dakota and Native American intervenors after concluding that even if race had been the predominate motive in the design of the challenged districts that “the State had good reasons and strong evidence to believe the subdistricts were required by the VRA” and that any race conscious line drawing had been “narrowly tailored to the State’s compelling interest.”

The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which on January 13, 2025, summarily affirmed the decision with respect to one of the challenged districts and dismissed the appeal with respect to the other.

Ohio

Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering

Congressional: Two now-concluded lawsuits by Ohio voters in state court contended that Ohio’s congressional map is a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Ohio Constitution: Adams v. DeWine, No. 2021–1428 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Dec. 2, 2021), and League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, No. 2021–1449 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Nov. 30, 2021).

According to the suits, the map passed by the Republican-controlled legislature gives Republicans a lopsided number of seats by splitting counties and Black communities to minimize the efficacy of Democratic votes. Under the plan, Republicans were projected to win 12 of 15 seats (80 percent) despite on average winning only 53 to 55 percent of the statewide vote.

On January 14, 2022, after consolidating the two cases, a 4–3 majority of the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that the congressional map was a partisan gerrymander under state law.

After the state adopted a new congressional map, the petitioners in Adams and League of Women Voters objected to the new map, contending that the map continued to be a partisan gerrymander. However, on March 18, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court overruled the objections, holding that the petitioners would have to file new cases if they wanted to challenge the map.

In response, the petitioners brought two state-court lawsuits contending that the revised congressional map remained an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander: Neiman v. LaRose, No. 2022–0298 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Mar. 21, 2022) and League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose, No. 2022–0303 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Mar. 22, 2022).

On July 19, 2022, the same four-justice majority that rejected the first congressional map also rejected the revised plan, finding that the map was another partisan gerrymander that “allocates voters in ways that unnecessarily favor the Republican Party by packing Democratic voters into a few dense Democratic-leaning districts, thereby increasing the Republican vote share of the remaining districts” and ordering it redrawn. However, because decision came after the state’s 2022 primary had already taken place, the new map ordered by the Court would not take effect until the 2024 election cycle.

Despite the court’s order, Ohio took no steps to redraw the state’s congressional map and instead asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the federal constitution’s Elections Clause barred state courts from ruling on state-law claims relating to congressional maps.

In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in a related Elections Clause case, Moore v. Harper, and sent the Ohio cases back to the Ohio Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of its decision in Moore.

On return of the cases to the Ohio Supreme Court, the petitioners decided not to pursue their gerrymandering claims further and, instead, asked the court to voluntarily dismiss the cases. The Ohio Supreme Court granted the request on September 7, 2023, ending the litigation. In addition to the partisan gerrymandering lawsuits in state court, Black voters filed a separate lawsuit in federal court, Simon v. DeWine, No. 4:21-CV-2267 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 1, 2021), that alleged that Ohio’s new congressional map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and is racially discriminatory because legislative leadership, when drawing the map, intentionally disregarded whether the proposed districts diluted the power of Black voters. The plaintiffs, however, voluntarily dismissed the case on March 22, 2022.

Legislative: Three cases filed in state court by Ohio voters, civil rights and good government organizations contended that the new state legislative maps enacted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission unfairly advantage Republican voters in violation of the Ohio Constitution: Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, No. 2021–1199 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Sept. 24, 2021) (Democratic voters), League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, No. 2021–1193 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Sept. 24, 2021) (good government and Black-led organizations and individual voters), and Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, No. 2021–1210 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Sept. 27, 2021) (Black and Muslim voters, civil rights organizations, and an environmental organization).

The suits alleged that the maps passed on a party-line basis by the state’s Republican-majority redistricting commission intentionally dilute the voting power of Ohio Democrats and minority voters through packing and cracking. Under the state house map, if Republican candidates earned 54 percent of the statewide vote, they would win a veto-proof supermajority in Ohio’s House of Representatives. Yet with the same vote share, Democrats would not even win a majority of seats.

The Ohio Supreme Court consolidated the cases, and on January 12, 2022, a 4–3 majority issued an opinion invalidating the state’s legislative maps on the grounds that they were an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

The commission subsequently enacted a revised General Assembly plan on January 22, 2022. The petitioners in all three cases objected, however, to the plan, arguing that the revised plan continued to significantly disadvantage Democrats.

On February 7, 2022, the same four justices who rejected the commission’s original plan also rejected the revised maps, finding that the maps continued to a partisan gerrymander. The Court ordered the commission to adopt a new set of maps by February 17, 2022.

The commission then enacted a third set of legislative maps on February 24, 2022. The petitioners in all three cases once again objected, and on March 16, 2022, the same four justices who rejected the commission’s original and first revised plans rejected its second revised legislative plan, finding that the maps were yet another partisan gerrymander.

The commission enacted a fourth set of legislative maps on March 28, 2022. The petitioners in all three cases once again objected to the maps, arguing that the new plan did not remedy partisan-gerrymandering violations found by the Court. On April 14, 2022, the same four justices who rejected the commission’s original, first revised, and second revised plans rejected its fourth set of revised maps, finding that the maps were yet another partisan gerrymander. The Court, however, rejected requests to adopt its own map or declare the constitutional validity of an alternative plan, determining that the Ohio Constitution did not permit the Court to implement such remedies. Instead, it gave the commission until June 3, 2022, to adopt another General Assembly plan, subject to the Court’s review.

Meanwhile, as state-court litigation was proceeding, a group of Republican voters filed suit in federal district court, Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, No. 2:22-CV-733 (S.D. Ohio February 22, 2022), asking a panel of federal judges to put a legislative map in place for the 2022 election, arguing that the back and forth between Ohio officials and the state’s supreme court – which under the Ohio Constitution had no power to impose a remedial map of its own – had left the state without any map to use in upcoming midterm elections.

On May 27, 2022, the federal court in the Gonidakis case issued an order directing Ohio to use the commission’s second legislative plan for the 2022 election cycle notwithstanding the fact that plan had already been found to be unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court.

As a result of the federal district court’s order, Ohio officials did not redraw the state’s legislative map until September 2023 when, in contrast to previous maps, it adopted a map on a bipartisan rather than party-line basis. Although plaintiffs in the three cases indicated that they continued to object to the new map, the court granted state officials’ motions to dismiss the cases on the grounds that the constitutional provisions relied upon by the plaintiffs did not apply to maps passed on a bipartisan basis.

Pennsylvania

Racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering

Legislative: After the Pennsylvania reapportionment board adopted new legislative maps, Pennsylvania voters filed four challenges to the maps before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Covert v. Pennsylvania 2021 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, No. 4 WM 2022 (Pa. Sup. Ct. Feb. 15, 2022), Benninghoff v. 2021 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, No. 11 MM 2022 (Pa. Sup. Ct. Feb. 17, 2022), Boscola v. 2021 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, No. 14 MM 2022 (Pa. Sup. Ct. March 2, 2022), and Roe v. 2021 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, No. 16 MM 2022 (Pa. Sup. Ct. Mar. 7, 2022).

All four cases alleged that the legislative maps enacted by Pennsylvania’s Legislative Reapportionment Commission violated the state constitution’s rules on subdivision splits for impermissible political reasons. The Benninghoff and Roe cases also contended that the maps were partisan gerrymanders in violated of the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Benninghoff case also alleged that several of the districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders that violate both the federal and state constitutions.

On March 16, 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a summary orderrejecting all four petitions, finding that the new legislative maps comply with state and federal laws.

On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the ruling in the Benninghoff case.

South Carolina

Racial discrimination

Congressional and legislative: The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Alexander, No. 3:21-CV-3302 (D.S.C. Oct. 12, 2021), filed in federal district court on behalf Black voters and a Black civil rights organization, contended that both the congressional and state house maps enacted by the South Carolina legislature were racial gerrymanders and intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

After filing of the suit, South Carolina agreed to settle claims related to the state house map by adopting a revised map that will take effect for the 2024 election cycle.

Meanwhile, a three-judge panel held a preliminary injunction hearing on claims regarding the congressional map, and on January 6, 2023, issued an order finding that the state’s First Congressional District, currently represented by Nancy Mace (R), was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander but rejecting the plaintiffs’ racial gerrymandering claims with respect to the Second and Fifth Congressional Districts. The state appealed the ruling on the First Congressional District to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On May 23, 2024, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court in a 6–3 opinion with respect to the lower court’s finding of a racial gerrymander. However, the opinion remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on the question of whether the state’s actions resulted in intentional vote dilution.

On July 26, 2024, Black plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their intentional vote dilution claims, ending the South Carolina litigation.

Partisan gerrymandering

Congressional: On July 29, 2024, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina filed League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Alexander, No. 2024–1227, an original action at the South Carolina Supreme Court contending that the state’s congressional map was a partisan gerrymander that violated various provisions of the state constitution, including its Free and Open Elections Clause and limitations in the state constitution on the division of counties in congressional redistricting. The South Carolina Supreme Court agreed to accept jurisdiction and has set argument in the case for June 24, 2025.

Tennessee

Racial discrimination

Congressional and legislative: Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP v. Lee, No. 3:23-CV-832 (M.D. Tenn. August 9, 2023) was filed in federal district court on behalf of Black Tennessee voters and civil rights organizations, contends that the state’s congressional and state senate maps are racial gerrymanders and intentionally discriminate against Black voters in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In particular, the complaint alleges that the new congressional map’s division of Davidson County, home to Nashville, among three districts and the new state senate map’s division of Shelby County adversely impacted Black voters, making it impossible for them to “continue to exercise their influence and elect candidates of their choice.”

On August 21, 2024, the three-judge panel in the case dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that the facts alleged in the complaint did not satisfy the pleading standards laid out by the Supreme Court in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. However, because the Tennessee had been filed before the Alexander decision, the court gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs elected not to file an amended complaint, and on September 25, 2024, agreed to voluntary dismissal of their claims with prejudice.

Texas

Racial discrimination

Congressional: A total of nine cases brought both by private plaintiffs and the United States Justice Department challenge the congressional map enacted by the Texas legislature after the 2020 census:

LULAC v. Abbott, No. 3:21-CV-259 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2021) (intentional race discrimination and Section 2 claims by Latino voters and organizations), Voto Latino v. Scott, No. 1:21-CV-965 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2021) (Section 2 claims by Latino and Black voters and a Latino voter organization), MALC v. Texas, No. 1:21-CV-988 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2021) (intentional race discrimination, racial gerrymandering, and Section 2 claims by the state’s Latino legislative caucus), Texas State Conference of the NAACP v. Abbott, No. 1:21-CV-1006 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2021) (intentional race discrimination, racial gerrymandering, and Section 2 claims by Black civil rights organization), Fair Maps Texas Action Committee v. Abbott, No. 1:21-CV-1038 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2021) (intentional race discrimination, racial gerrymandering, and Section 2 claims by Latino, Black, and Asian voters and organizations), United States v. Texas, No. 3:21-CV-299 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2021) (Section 2 claims), Martinez Fischer v. Abbott, No. 3:21-CV-306 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2021) (intentional race discrimination and Section 2 claims by Latino state representative), Brooks v. Abbott, No. 1:21-CV-991 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2021) (Section 2 claims by Latino and Black voters), and Escobar v. Abbott, No. 3:22-CV-22 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2022) (intentional race discrimination and Section 2 claims by Latina member of U.S. House).

Collectively, the cases, which have been consolidated for trial, contend that multiple parts of the Texas congressional map are racial gerrymanders or intentionally discriminate against Black, Latino, and/or Asian voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution or, alternatively, violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Since the consolidation, four of the cases have been resolved through voluntary dismissal of claims.

On June 23, 2022, Congresswoman Veronica Escobar voluntarily dismissed the Escobar suit, on March 5, 2025, the United States voluntarily dismissed all of its claims, on March 21, 2025, the Fair Maps Texas plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all of their remaining claims, and on May 9, 2025, State Representative Trey Martinez Fischer voluntarily dismissed his case.

The remaining five cases challenging congressional maps are set for a trial scheduled to start on May 21, 2025.

Legislative: The United States, Fair Maps coalition, Texas NAACP, MALC, Brooks, Voto Latino, and LULAC lawsuits also contend that Texas’s legislative maps are intentionally discriminate against minority voters in violation of the U.S. Constitution, are racial gerrymanders and/or violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in multiple parts of the state. As with their congressional claims, the United States and Fair Maps Texas plaintiffs dismissed all their remaining claims in March 2025.

Challenges to legislative maps in the remaining five cases are also set for a trial scheduled to start on May 21, 2025.

Utah

Partisan gerrymandering

Congressional: League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, No. 220901712 (Utah Dist. Ct. Mar. 17, 2022), which was filed on behalf of Utah voters, a voting rights organization, and a civil rights organization, contends that the new congressional map adopted by Utah lawmakers is an extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the Utah constitution. In the alternative, the plaintiffs argued the legislature’s repeal of the statutory anti-gerrymandering reforms adopted by voters through a ballot initiative in 2018 violates separation of powers limitations imposed by the Utah Constitution. The state defendants moved to dismiss the case.

On October 24, 2022, a trial court issued a summary order declining to dismiss the plaintiffs’ either the plaintiffs’ gerrymandering or separation of powers claims. The state defendants appealed the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court, which issued a decision on July 11, 2024, holding that legislative repeal or modification of a ballot initiative intended to “reform or alter” the structure of government was subject to strict scrutiny review. The decision remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the legislature’s repeal of the 2018 initiative was narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. Because a ruling on remand in favor of the plaintiffs would likely moot the plaintiffs’ claims that partisan gerrymandering violates the Utah constitution, the court did not rule on those claims.

On remand, the plaintiffs have asked the district court for summary judgment on their claim that the legislature’s repeal of anti-gerrymandering reforms was unconstitutional under the standards enunciated by the Utah Supreme Court and asked that the court put in place a remedial process that would lead to a new congressional map for the 2026 midterms. The district court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs’ motion and the state defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment on January 31, 2025, but has not yet ruled.

Washington

Racial discrimination

Legislative: Soto Palmer v. Trevino, No. 3:22-CV-5035 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 19, 2022), filed in federal district court on behalf of Latino voters and a voting rights organization, contends that the new legislative plan adopted by the Washington State Redistricting Commission dilutes the political influence of Latino voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The suit alleged that the plan creates only a “façade of a Latino opportunity district” within the Yakima Valley region. Although the version of District 15 adopted by the commission had a Latino voting-age population over 50 percent, the plaintiffs contended the district had been drawn in such a way that the region’s Latino voters would have extreme difficulty electing their preferred candidates, typically Latino Democrats, to the Washington State Legislature. A group of Three Republican Latino voters, including a Republican Latino state representative, intervened to defend the commission’s map.

On August 10, 2023, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the commission’s configuration of District 15 “impairs the ability of Latino voters in [the Yakima Valley region] to elect their candidate of choice on an equal basis with other voters.”

After Washington declined the opportunity to reconvene the state’s redistricting commission to adopt a new map, the court held remedial hearings and issued an orderadopting a court-imposed map on March 15, 2024.

Republican intervenors in the case are appealing both the decision striking down the commission’s map and the decision adopting a remedial map to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Separately, an individual Washington voter also filed a lawsuit in federal court, Garcia v. Hobbs, No. 3:22-CV-5152 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 2022), contending that District 15 in the commission’s legislative plan was a racial gerrymander in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

However, on September 8, 2023, after ruling in the Soto Palmer case that District 15 needed to be redrawn because of Voting Rights Act violations, the district court dismissed the racial gerrymandering challenge on the grounds that the case was now moot. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but, on February 20, 2024, the high court held that any appeal from the district court’s order was properly to the Ninth Circuit rather than the Supreme Court. The plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, which heard oral argument in the case on March 27, 2025.

Wisconsin

Partisan gerrymandering

Legislative: In August 2023, two group of Wisconsin voters filed original actions before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, contending that the state’s legislative maps were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders under Wisconsin law: Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2023AP001399 (August 2, 2023) and Wright v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2023AP001412 (August 4, 2023).

The Clarke case, but not the Wright case, also raised two additional claims: First, that the maps severely violated the requirement in the constitution that districts be contiguous and, second, that the maps, which had been put in place by the court after legislative deadlock using a “least change” principle, ran afoul of separation of powers doctrines in the state constitution since the court selected maps that had previously been vetoed by the governor.

On October 6, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to hear argument on the Clarke plaintiffs’ contiguity and separation of powers claims but declined to hear argument on either set of plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims.

On December 22, 2023, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, reversing earlier decisions on contiguity and holding that the state’s legislative maps did not comply with the constitution’s requirements, finding that at least 50 of 99 state assembly districts and 20 of 33 state senate districts “contain territory completely disconnected from the rest of the district.”

In ordering the legislature to adopt a new map, the court laid out the principles it would use to evaluate any new map adopted by the court. These included the “partisan impact” of a remedial map because, as the court explained, “[u]nlike the legislative and executive branches, which are political by nature, this court must remain politically neutral. We do not have free license to enact maps that privilege one political party over another.”

The legislature has since adopted a new map, which Governor Tony Evers has signed into law.

Congressional: Three cases, all in state court, have challenged Wisconsin’s congressional map.

In the first case, intervenors in Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, an earlier case asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to put a map in place after legislative deadlock, moved to have the high court reopen the Johnson case to overturn the “least change” congressional map previously adopted by the court and adopt in its place a new politically neutral map consistent with the principles enunciated with respect to legislative maps in Clarke. However, after briefing, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the request in a summary order issued on March 1, 2024.

The second and third cases, Bothfield v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No.2025AP000996, and Felton v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2025AP000999, were filed on May 8, 2025.

The Bothfield case alleges that the “least change” congressional map adopted by the court after legislative deadlock perpetuates an earlier legislatively drawn partisan gerrymander and thus discriminates against voters based on their political viewpoints in violation of the Wisconsin constitution. The Bothfield plaintiffs also allege that adoption of the least-change map violated separation of powers principles in the Wisconsin constitution.

The Felton case alleges that the court-adopted map inapprioriately elevated the least-change principle over population equality and thus is malapportioned under requirements of the Wisconsin constitution.

Texas Republicans are on the verge of enacting new voting maps that would entrench the state’s Republican and white majority even as its non-white population grows rapidly.

Texas Republicans approved the congressional plan on Monday evening, sending it to Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, who is expected to sign the measure.

The Texas maps offer perhaps the most brazen effort in the US so far this year to draw new district lines to benefit one political party, a practice called gerrymandering. The proposed congressional map would blunt growing Democratic strength in the Texas suburbs. Texas Republicans already have a 23-13 seat advantage in the state’s congressional delegation and the new maps would double the number of safe GOP congressional seats in the state from 11 to 22, according to the Washington Post.

Democrats would have 12 safe seats, up from eight. There would be just one competitive congressional district in the state, down from 12.

The map also clearly blunts the growing political strength of minorities in Texas. Over the last decade, the Hispanic population has grown by nearly 2 million people in the state, while the white population increased by about 187,000 people. Ninety-five per cent of the state’s population growth over the last decade has come from minorities, but the proposed congressional map actually lowers the number of districts in the state where non-white people comprise a majority. There would be one additional district where whites make up a majority of voters.

“You have to try real hard to draw districts that don’t contemplate the 95% growth in communities of color. I mean you have to be really intentional,” said Rafael Anchia, a Democrat in the Texas house who chairs the Mexican American Legislative Caucus. “In district after district the voting power of minority populations was diluted over and over again.”

Republicans have rushed their map proposals through the state legislature, giving the public little opportunity to have their say. Sometimes hearings were announced with just 24 hours’ notice, and several votes to advance the plans took place in the late hours of the night. “The legislature just rammed this through,” Anchia said.

“It’s pretty demoralizing, to be honest with you,” he added. “You have a rigging of the rules of the game from the last decade, that permits the majority to manipulate the rules from the redistricting process to then continue to hold on to power and deny people policy outcomes that will materially impact their lives.”

Civil rights groups have already filed one federal lawsuit seeking to prevent the state from using the maps in the future. The suit, filed on Monday in federal court in San Antonio, argues that the maps violate both the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. The maps “unlawfully dilute the voting strength of Latinos”, lawyers representing the plaintiffs wrote, and “intentionally discriminate against them on the basis of race and national origin”.

Republicans have complete control of state government in Texas, which also means they have complete control over the redistricting process. The new maps offer a clear example of how lawmakers can stop political change and virtually guarantee their re-election for the decade over which the maps are used.

The Republican effort to entrench power is clearest in the suburbs, which are the fastest-growing and some of the most diverse in the state. In several places, Republicans annexed areas with fast-growing minority populations to rural areas that are more likely to vote for GOP candidates. The tactics ensure the districts will remain reliably red.

“What this map tells me is [Republicans] are not sure they’re getting white suburban voters back, so they’ve decided we’re just going to use rural voters to neutralize the suburbs,” said Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice.

It’s a strategy on full display in places like the suburbs of Dallas, which includes the 33rd congressional district.

Hispanic voters make up nearly a majority of the district, according to the Texas Tribune. But in their new map, Republicans carved out a heavily Hispanic portion of the 33rd and attached it instead to the sixth congressional district nextdoor, which stretches over 6,000 square miles all the way into rural east Texas. The Hispanic voters will be shifted from a Democratic district in which they had significant political weight to one in which white people nearly make up a majority.

A similar strategy is on display in Fort Bend county, which includes the south-west Houston suburbs. It is one of the fastest-growing and most diverse across the country – nearly evenly split between whites, African Americans, Hispanics and Asian Americans. Democrats have been making clear gains there; Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both carried the district in 2016 and 2020.

Under the new Republican map, some of the most Democratic-leaning areas in the county would be lumped in with already heavily Democratic districts in Houston. The remaining portion of the county will be attached to rural areas that are solidly Republican. It’s a configuration that will ensure a Republican candidate can hold on to the congressional district.

Because of the supreme court’s 2013 decision hollowing out the Voting Rights Act, this will be the first time since 1965 that Texas does not have to submit its maps to the federal government for approval before they go into effect. It will be a huge boon to Texas, where courts have repeatedly struck down districts as violations of the Voting Rights Act in every decade since the law went into effect.

In 2011, when Texas still had to submit its maps for pre-clearance, federal courts blocked the maps from going into effect. Later, a federal court found that the 2011 maps were passed with an intent to discriminate against minority voters.

A federal voting rights bill, the For the People Act, which is pending in the Senate, would most probably block the Texas congressional plan, Li said. The bill would allow a court to block a plan from being used if computer simulations showed the plan would result in a level of bias beyond a certain threshold in two of the four most recent US Senate and presidential elections. The Texas plan would fail in all four elections, Li said.

Democrats are set to hold a vote on the legislation on Wednesday, but Republicans are likely to block it using the filibuster, a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance legislation. There are calls for Democrats to get rid of the rule to pass voting rights legislation.

Earlier this year, Anchia and his fellow Democrats left Texas for several weeks, denying lawmakers a quorum as they sought to advance sweeping voting rights legislation. They spent that time in Washington lobbying senators to pass federal voting rights legislation.

“The Senate has to act. They have to act because democracy requires it,” Anchia said.