A court fight in Virginia over a newly approved redistricting plan is the latest flash point in a growing wave of legal battles over political maps across the United States, as disputes over how districts are drawn continue to play out well beyond the once-a-decade census cycle.
Whether it’s a judge blocking certification of a ballot measure in Virginia or looming challenges over a potential mid-decade redraw in Florida, redistricting is increasingly being decided in courtrooms rather than by legislatures.
Legal groups tracking the issue say dozens of cases are active nationwide, spanning claims over racial discrimination, partisan advantage and the rules governing how maps are created.
Newsweek has rounded them up below, based on tracking by Democracy Docket and the Brennan Center.
Virginia
Virginia’s latest redistricting fight began after voters approved a Tuesday ballot measure meant to reshape how political maps are drawn.
But the rollout has quickly run into trouble in state courts. A judge in a Tazewell County Circuit Court temporarily blocked the state from certifying the new system, raising concerns about how the amendment was handled.
At the same time, other lawsuits argue that the ballot language was misleading, and that officials did not follow the correct process in putting the measure into effect.
The cases are moving through Virginia’s court system and could ultimately be decided by the state Supreme Court, which would determine whether the new maps can be used.
Florida
In Florida, the next redistricting battle has not fully arrived, but it is already taking shape.
Republican Governor Ron DeSantis called a special session to consider legislation on redistricting beginning April 28, setting up the next front in the fight, according to his proclamation.
Past cases show that Florida’s maps are often challenged under the state’s anti-gerrymandering rules, which bar lawmakers from drawing districts to benefit one party. New lawsuits could also argue that changes weaken the voting power of minority communities.
California
California uses an independent commission to draw its political maps, a system designed to take power away from lawmakers.
Still, the maps are still being challenged—this time in federal court.
The dispute centers on how race was used when the districts were drawn. Some challengers say the commission went too far, while others argue those decisions were necessary to protect minority voters under federal law.
The case is being heard by a federal district judge and could eventually move to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Missouri
Missouri’s congressional map, passed by the Republican-led legislature, has been under steady pressure since it was approved.
Challenges have been filed in state courts, where judges are being asked to weigh whether the map is too politically skewed. At the same time, separate legal fights tied to ballot initiatives have tried to reopen the question of how districts should be drawn.
The result is a patchwork of cases moving through Missouri’s courts, with the possibility that the state’s Supreme Court could have the final say.
Alabama
Alabama remains one of the most closely watched redistricting battles in the country.
After the state legislature drew its congressional map, voting rights groups went to federal court, arguing that the lines weaken the political power of Black voters.
A panel of federal judges agreed that the map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and said the state should create another district where Black voters have a stronger voice. The case has already reached the U.S. Supreme Court, and federal courts continue to oversee how Alabama responds.
The outcome could shape how similar cases are handled nationwide.
Texas
Texas, one of the fastest-growing states, redrew its maps after the 2020 census and has been fighting about them ever since.
Multiple lawsuits are now moving through federal courts, where judges are reviewing claims that the districts disadvantage minority voters.
These cases are being heard by three-judge federal panels, a special setup often used for redistricting disputes, with any appeals going directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
North Carolina
North Carolina’s maps have been redrawn multiple times, sometimes by lawmakers and sometimes by the courts.
That back-and-forth has continued into the current cycle, with new challenges filed in state courts.
Judges are being asked to decide whether the latest maps go too far in favoring one party and how much power courts themselves have to step in. The North Carolina Supreme Court has shifted its position on these issues in recent years, adding another layer of uncertainty.
The state remains one of the most unpredictable battlegrounds for redistricting cases.
Ohio
Ohio’s redistricting process—which splits responsibility between lawmakers and a commission—has repeatedly ended up in court.
Judges, including those on the Ohio Supreme Court, have been asked to decide whether the maps meet voter-approved rules meant to limit gerrymandering.
At several points, courts have ordered maps to be redrawn, only for new disputes to follow.