Who is ultimately going to win the game of "mid-decade redistricting" that Republicans launched earlier this year? At this point, nobody knows. Several things are still very much up in the air, and we won't be able to tell the ultimate score until all the state maps are locked in and people are actually running and campaigning in the resulting districts (filing deadlines are already approaching in several states, it is worth mentioning).

The Republicans were heavily favored to win this political game, of course. They had more opportunities to rejigger the district lines than Democrats, since they held more state governments (with a trifecta of both chambers of the legislature and the governor's office) than Democrats did. But with a dramatic court decision, this advantage seems to have all but evaporated -- to the extent that the final score might actually show Democrats gaining an advantage.

Let's take a quick look at how things are developing at the state level, before attempting to draw any conclusions.

Texas [no change... for now]

Texas led off this frenzy of redistricting, on the express orders of Donald Trump. Trump told Texas to add five more safe-Republican seats, which they promptly did. This set off a reaction in other states, which we'll get to in a moment.

So the initial score started at [R +5]. Maybe. Republicans might have been a wee bit overconfident in drawing this new map, because they might have overestimated their support with Latino voters. The recent 2025 elections showed Democrats making huge gains with this demographic group, meaning their shift to Trump in 2024 might have been a one-time thing. If this is true, one or possibly two of those newly-redrawn districts might have actually been competitive for Democrats, so it could have wound up with Republicans only gaining three or four seats instead of five.

Yesterday, a panel of judges tossed the new district map out and told Texas they had to use their previous map. The judges did so because of the question of race swirling around the districts. Of course, Texas immediately appealed to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court as it stands is a purely partisan body that has already shown its willingness to gut the Voting Rights Act. So who knows what they'll do? They could easily overrule the lower judges and allow Texas to move forward with the new map. But they'll have to do so quickly -- the filing deadline for candidates in Texas is December 8th, which is only a few weeks away.

California [D +5... for now]

California Governor Gavin Newsom, with an eye towards running for president in 2028, immediately countered Texas by pushing a ballot initiative in his own state. California has a non-partisan redistricting committee plan in place, which necessitated the voters weighing in. This was initially seen as a gamble, since the state's voters had overwhelmingly (and repeatedly) voted for such commissions in the not-so-distant past. Initially, tens of millions of dollars were pumped into an ad campaign to vote No on the proposition, but in the end Californians voted for Proposition 50 by an almost 2-to-1 margin.

The new scheme is to just blatantly gerrymander the districts until Donald Trump is safely out of office, after which the state will theoretically return to the non-partisan committee structure. But for now (and likely for the rest of the decade), this will add five safe-Democratic seats in the state (which was designed to perfectly counterbalance what Texas had done).

California's redistricting is also being challenged in the courts, so we'll have to see how this all shakes out. But California, unlike Texas, can argue in court that the new map is voter-approved (Texans didn't get to vote on their redistricting, it was done by their state legislature and governor).

Utah [D +1]

Unlike the other states listed here, Utah's shift happened as a result of a court case. The district lines had been challenged (after Utah gerrymandered all their districts to be safe-Republican) and the judge agreed with the challengers. The state was thus ordered to use a map which should result in one Democrat winning a House seat (to represent Salt Lake City).

North Carolina [R +1]

North Carolina Republicans redistricted to add one more safe-GOP seat.

Missouri [R +1... for now]

Missouri Republicans created a new map to add one more safe-Republicans seat, but there is a push for a ballot initiative challenging the new map which is being fought in the courts. If the initiative is approved for next year's ballot, it would mean that the old map would have to be used for the 2026 election cycle. So for the time being Republicans have added a seat, but if the initiative makes it to the ballot that will be erased (for next year, at least).

Ohio [R +2... maybe?]

Ohio has a very convoluted redistricting process that is worthy of a whole article, but suffice it to say that the outcome could have been a lot worse for Democrats. The new map that emerged from this process (for various reasons, one being that the voters might have been allowed to have a say in the process) isn't what you might call a "hard gerrymander" favoring the Republicans, but instead just makes two Democratic districts a bit more competitive. The new map was actually somewhat of a compromise between the two parties. So in Ohio, no one really knows what the score is going to wind up being until after the actual midterm vote next November.

Illinois [possible D +1]

Now we enter into speculation, since none of the rest of the states listed here has actually finished redistricting. Illinois is already pretty heavily gerrymandered towards Democrats, but if they get creative they could add one more safe-Democratic seat. However, the governor signaled earlier that he would only act if Indiana did, and the Democrats in the legislature have not been supportive of efforts from national Democrats (including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) to jump into the redistricting fray.

Virginia [possible D +2 to +4]

Virginia, on the other hand, seems a lot more eager than Illinois to get in on this game. The legislature has already taken action (which for complicated reasons they had to do before the election this year), and will likely put a referendum on the ballot in the spring to redistrict the state. The new map would add at least two -- and possibly three or four -- safe-Democratic seats.

Florida [possible R +2 to +5]

Florida is the big wildcard on the Republican side, at this point. Republicans are moving forward with a redistricting plan, but no map has been finalized yet. They could attempt to add anywhere from two to five seats to the GOP column. The new map will likely be challenged in court. Florida could also run into the same problem that Texas may have -- in an attempt to create as many safe Republican districts as possible, the process could actually backfire on them by diluting the solid-Republican votes in their already-safe districts to the point where they might actually become competitive for Democrats (especially in a "wave" election). Florida will likely publish any new map it comes up with next month or soon after.

Red states that refused to redistrict

Republicans in Indiana and Kansas were both instructed by Trump and his minions to redistrict their states to add one more safe Republican seat in each. But, astoundingly, the Republicans in the state legislature refused to do so. So instead of adding two seats, there is no change from either of these states. There was also a push for New Hampshire to redistrict to add one more safe-GOP seat, but this encountered resistance from both the Republican governor and state legislatures, so it is dead in the water for now. And in Nebraska, they would need a two-thirds supermajority in their unicameral legislative chamber, and there is one Republican holdout who refuses to budge, so it's a safe bet at this point that they'll be using the same map instead of changing it for next year as well.

Blue state that is refusing to redistrict

Maryland, on the other hand, could theoretically add one more safe-Democratic seat, but Maryland is already one of the most obviously gerrymandered Democratic states around. The Democratic governor (who is also contemplating a 2028 presidential bid) has so far declined to act, so there may not be any change in the score from Maryland.

Supreme Court wildcard

Not only will the Supreme Court weigh in on the constitutionality of the new Texas map (and quite possible the new California map and perhaps others), but they are already in the midst of a case challenging the Voting Rights Act. The justices have already largely dismantled this landmark American law, but some shreds of it remain. The case under consideration could dismantle the rest of the protections altogether. Nobody has any idea when they'll rule on the case, but if they do rule -- essentially that race cannot be taken into account in any way in redistricting -- then there will be a mad rush across the South to gerrymander all the districts drawn to provide fair representation for Black voters.

If the court tosses out the rest of the Voting Rights Act, it will give the Republicans a huge advantage -- but most people are expecting the decision to arrive too late for it to influence the 2026 cycle. They could be wrong, though -- you never know what this Supreme Court will do.

Conclusions

The judges' ruling on the Texas redistricting map has changed things for the better for Democrats -- but this might not be the final word.

If the ruling is upheld and Texas has to use their old map, and also if California's map is upheld by the courts, then the score stands at: Democrats up six seats, while Republicans are only up four. And two of those seats are in Ohio and not actually guaranteed to be safe Republican seats.

Of the remaining states, Virginia and Florida look the most likely to actually follow through with their redistricting plans. Depending on the maps they approve, this could be a wash for both or possibly a slim advantage for Republicans.

If the Supreme Court overturns the decision against Texas, then Republicans would wind up being up nine seats (seven of which were solid, two maybe not) while Democrats are only up six. After Virginia and Florida move, Republicans could wind up with an advantage of perhaps four or five seats, at best.

Even with that as a worst-case scenario for Democrats, things look a whole lot better than they did when this whole process began. If the new Texas map doesn't get revived by the Supreme Court, Democrats could even wind up ahead of the game -- which is something nobody predicted when this whole process began.

The next few months will be critical, but sooner or later the clock's going to run out. Candidates have to be able to file to run their campaigns. To do so, the lines must be finalized. So we'll probably know the final score in this power game by February -- but so far it hasn't been as devastating for the Democrats as many had feared when Texas kicked off the whole process.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant