Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton expressed support for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Friday that upholds Texas’ redrawn congressional map, emphasizing that it allows states to draw districts with partisan considerations in mind.
The Supreme Court granted an emergency request from Texas to block a lower court ruling which had declared the state’s new map a racial gerrymander. This stay permits the use of the revised boundaries for the upcoming 2026 midterm elections while legal challenges continue.
Paxton, speaking on Newsmax’s “Rob Schmitt Tonight,” commented that the decision aligns with previous rulings by the court and was not entirely surprising. He criticized Democrats, stating they have engaged in similar partisan gerrymandering tactics when controlling state legislatures, often targeting states with significant minority populations to gain political advantage.
Specifically, Paxton pointed out instances where Democratic-led states draw maps that heavily favor their party despite large Republican voter bases. “It’s been happening for years. The Democrats have been doing it,” Paxton remarked.
He argued that it is hypocritical for critics of the ruling to object only now while acknowledging these same practices in other states, including nine that elect all Democratic representatives regardless of the actual political composition of their voters.
The legal distinction made by the court’s decision is significant. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that partisan gerrymandering—drawing districts based on party affiliation—is permissible, provided it does not incorporate racial considerations which are separately prohibited under constitutional standards.
Paxton believes this ruling may encourage other Republican-majority states to adopt a similar strategic approach in their redistricting efforts. “I hope that we’re setting the trend for other states,” he said, suggesting Texas could serve as an example for GOP-led jurisdictions seeking to maximize electoral advantage through map drawing.
Texas AG Defends Supreme Court Ruling on Congressional Map
In a victory for proponents of partisan redistricting, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton voiced strong support for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the state’s redrawn congressional boundaries. The ruling permits Texas to utilize these maps in the 2026 midterm elections while allowing ongoing legal challenges.
Paxton, addressing a Newsmax television program on Friday, characterized the outcome as consistent with prior court decisions that permit states to consider political party interests when drawing electoral lines. “The court has allowed this for years,” he stated, adding that Democrats have historically engaged in similar practices whenever they control state legislatures.
Highlighting hypocrisy among critics, Paxton cited instances where Democratic-majority states have drawn maps favoring their party despite Republican voting blocs. He implied these actions are analogous to Texas’s own strategy, noting that nine states elect entirely Democratic congressional delegations even though substantial numbers of Republicans reside there—a parallel he believes underscores the fairness inherent in the ruling.
The legal distinction is clear: partisan gerrymandering is constitutionally allowed if it excludes racial factors specifically used for discriminatory purposes. This principle, which has guided Texas’s approach since its implementation earlier this year, aligns with what Paxton described as the court’s long-standing acceptance of such tactics among all political parties when seeking to solidify their electoral gains.
Paxton anticipates that other Republican-controlled states may emulate Texas’s strategy following this landmark decision. He believes it offers a legitimate tool for ensuring legislative representation benefits align with voter demographics and party support, without explicitly citing constitutional barriers against racial bias.
“The court has given us the green light,” Paxton concluded, suggesting Texas’s example could inspire further state-level redistricting efforts focused on electoral advantage rather than demographic concerns.
