Texas’s New Map Is Here to Stay

[AustinLiberator]

Just recently, Justice Samuel Alito issued an emergency injunction that will define Texas’s midterm elections: a late-breaking order restoring the Legislature’s new congressional map after a lower court attempted to strike it down.

Many national outlets framed the ruling as a temporary pause. Texans should know better. In redistricting law, this was not a pause at all—it was a checkmate.

Here’s why the Supreme Court is almost certain to uphold the Legislature’s map, and why Texans will vote under it in the 2026 midterms.

 Legislative Maps Begin With a Strong Presumption of Legitimacy

For decades, the Supreme Court has repeated the same principle: redistricting is a legislative task. From Growe v. Emison to Wise v. Lipscomb to Perry v. Perez, the Court has warned lower courts to tread lightly and intervene only if a map clearly violates federal law.

Because the Legislature enacted this map, it starts out cloaked in constitutional deference.

 Abbott v. Perez: The Precedent That Shields Texas’s Map

In Abbott v. Perez (2018), the Supreme Court handed Texas a powerful doctrinal shield:

• Legislatures enjoy a presumption of good faith when redistricting.
• Past discrimination does not “taint” new maps.
• Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving intentional racial discrimination in the new plan.

That burden is extraordinarily difficult to meet here. The 2025 map is newly enacted and not simply a continuation of prior maps. There’s no damning evidence—only conjecture.

 Partisan Intent Is Legal, and SCOTUS Has Reaffirmed It

In Alexander v. South Carolina (2024), the Court held that:

• Partisan motives are permissible.
• Plaintiffs must prove race, not politics, predominated.
• Correlation between race and party isn’t enough.

Texas’s map is openly partisan. Under current Supreme Court doctrine, that’s not a flaw - it’s politics. And politics alone will not invalidate a map.

 Mid-Decade Redraws Are Allowed

Opponents argue Texas should not redraw districts mid-decade. SCOTUS disagrees. In LULAC v. Perry (2006), the Court held there is “nothing inherently suspect” in a legislature replacing a prior plan mid-cycle.

Texas acted well within its authority.

 

Alito’s Injunction Didn’t Just Pause the Lower Court—It Locked the Map In

The significance of Alito’s recent injunction is enormous. It invokes the Purcell principle, the long-standing rule discouraging courts from imposing new election maps when deadlines are near and election machinery is already moving.

Candidate filing and ballot preparations for 2026 are underway. Changing the map now would plunge Texas into administrative chaos.

Purcell forbids that.

When the Supreme Court reinstates a map this close to an election, history shows it usually survives the entire cycle—and often beyond.

 The Bottom Line

Put all the doctrine together:

• Legislative maps get deference.
• Plaintiffs must prove intentional racial discrimination.
• Partisan gerrymandering is not illegal.
• Mid-decade redraws are lawful.
• Purcell protects election stability.

The conclusion writes itself:

Texas’s new congressional map is almost certainly the map Texans will vote under in the 2026 midterms—and the Supreme Court is overwhelmingly likely to uphold it.

Justice Alito’s recent injunction didn’t just restore a map. It effectively decided the redistricting battle for this election cycle, and perhaps for years to come.