A three-judge federal panel delivered a stunning blow to representative democracy Tuesday by blocking Texas from implementing its newly drawn congressional map, potentially costing Republicans five seats while California Democrats prepare to add five seats of their own through blatant gerrymandering. The decision represents yet another example of judicial overreach threatening to permanently shift the balance of power in Congress.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown and Judge Davi Guaderrama issued a 2-1 decision claiming the new Texas map constitutes illegal race-based gerrymandering. Here are the facts: Texas Republicans explicitly stated they drew the map based on political preference, which is entirely legal. The court simply refused to believe them.
“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” the majority opinion acknowledges, before proceeding to ignore that very reality. The judges claim that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map,” despite Texas Republicans consistently maintaining the redistricting reflected political considerations and population growth.
The logical inconsistency becomes apparent when examining the timeline. The Department of Justice sent Texas a letter in July demanding the state redraw its existing map, claiming certain districts constituted unconstitutional “coalition districts” based on race. Governor Greg Abbott subsequently called a special session specifically referencing these “constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.”
So let us understand the bind Texas now finds itself in: The DOJ demands Texas address race-based concerns in its existing map. Texas complies by redrawing districts. The court then rules that because Texas addressed these concerns, the new map must be race-based and therefore illegal. This is circular reasoning at its finest.
The court rejected testimony from Texas Republicans, declaring it “extremely unlikely” that racial outcomes occurred by “pure chance.” But this assumes the only two options are deliberate racial gerrymandering or random chance, ignoring the obvious third option: political gerrymandering based on voting patterns that happen to correlate with demographics.
Josh Findlay, Director of Texas Public Policy Foundation, correctly identified what actually occurred: “What Texas did this cycle was done to reflect the will of Texas voters, not left-wing special interests.”
Meanwhile, California faces no such scrutiny. Voters there passed Proposition 50 to redraw state maps in a transparent effort to offset Republican gains in Texas, adding five Democrat-leaning seats. The DOJ has sued California, but the appeals process will likely delay any ruling until after the midterms, effectively allowing the new lines to stand.
Notice the pattern: Texas Republicans attempt to reflect their state’s massive population growth and conservative shift, only to face immediate judicial intervention. California Democrats openly gerrymander to maintain power, and the legal process conveniently moves slowly enough to preserve their advantage.
The five seats Texas expected to gain reflect real population growth. Texas gained nearly four million residents between 2010 and 2020, more than any other state. These are not imaginary seats conjured through partisan manipulation. They represent actual Americans who moved to Texas, many fleeing high-tax blue states, who deserve representation reflecting their political preferences.
If this injunction stands through appeals, Republicans will have allowed Democrats to steal five congressional seats through judicial fiat while simultaneously gaining five seats in California. The implications for House control are obvious and dire.
Republican-led states must recognize this asymmetric warfare for what it is: Democrats will use every available lever of power, including unelected judges and slow-walking legal processes, to maintain control. Unless Republicans develop the political will to fight back with equal intensity, permanent minority status becomes not just possible but probable.
The facts are simple. Texas followed the law. California is gerrymandering. And activist judges are ensuring only one side pays the price.
Related: Australian Opposition Debates Sharp Immigration Reductions Tied to Infrastructure Capacity