Which states will redistrict before the midterms?
Short Answer
Both the model and the market overwhelmingly agree that California is most likely to redistrict before the midterms, with only minor residual uncertainty.
1. Executive Verdict
- Since last update (~91d): South Carolina's probabilities plunged 54.5pp (model) and 64.0pp (market), showing market-led compression.
- Virginia and Mississippi saw significant market-led probability drops of 38.1pp and 12.3pp (model).
- Our model notably led increases for Alabama (+15.6pp) and Florida (+13.0pp), compressing their edges.
- Missouri's probability significantly rose for both model (+23.4pp), with overall edge compressing 2.4pp.
- California, Texas, Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana maps are enacted for 2026 midterms.
- Ten states enacted new congressional maps for the 2026 midterms by August 2026.
Who Wins and Why
| Outcome | Market | Model | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia | 7.0% | 1.7% | Virginia likely completed its redistricting process early via its independent commission. |
| California | 97.9% | 98.3% | California likely finalized its redistricting plans after the most recent census. |
| South Carolina | 1.0% | 0.3% | No specific information regarding South Carolina redistricting is present in the provided research excerpt. |
| Louisiana | 95.4% | 97.3% | Louisiana likely enacted new district maps following legislative and potential judicial review. |
| New York | 3.4% | 1.2% | Redistricting considerations may lead to changes before the midterms. |
Current Context
Ten states enacted new congressional maps for the 2026 midterm elections. As of August 2026, Alabama, California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah have enacted new congressional district maps for the 2026 midterm elections, part of an unusual wave of mid-decade redistricting [^][^][^]. While most map-drawing for the 2026 midterms is considered complete, legal challenges persist in states such as Missouri, where a potential referendum on the new map faces uncertainty [^][^][^]. Other states encountered different outcomes: South Carolina's efforts to pass a new map for 2026 ultimately failed, and Alabama's legislature-drawn map remained blocked by federal courts [^][^][^].
Redistricting projections favor Republicans, with potential for significant seat gains. Analysts estimate this mid-decade redistricting will result in a net gain of up to 16-17 seats for Republicans and up to 6 seats for Democrats, although the final electoral impact depends on political conditions and voter behavior in November [^][^][^][^]. The U.S. Supreme Court's April 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which restricted certain racial considerations in district line drawing, influenced several states to re-evaluate or accelerate their redistricting processes [^][^]. Separately, legislative efforts in Georgia, Mississippi, New York, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington are focused on redistricting cycles for the 2028 election, not the upcoming November 2026 midterms [^][^][^].
2. Market Behavior & Price Dynamics
Historical Price (Probability)
Outcome probability
Date
This market has traded in a narrow range between 1.0% and 3.1% probability. Price action was static at 1.0% through late July before a single, decisive move to 3.1% around August 1. The price has remained flat at that level since. The initial 1.0% price floor represents the market's opening assessment, while the 3.1% level has acted as firm resistance.
The price jump to 3.1% appears directly linked to reports that ten states, including North Carolina, Ohio, and Louisiana, had enacted new congressional maps. The market adjusted from a minimal probability to a slightly higher, albeit still low, probability in response to this wave of mid-decade redistricting. The subsequent stabilization at 3.1% suggests the market has fully priced in the known map changes and sees a low probability of additional states completing the process before 2026.
Total volume is extremely light at just 199 contracts traded, with many sessions recording zero activity. This low liquidity indicates a lack of broad participation and conviction behind the current price. While the price reflects the known fundamental developments, the thin trading volume suggests these levels have not been tested by significant capital flow.
3. Market Data
Contract Snapshot
The provided page content displays the current status and odds for the "Which states will redistrict before the midterms?" market, including sub-markets for Alabama, Virginia, and Utah. However, it does not include the detailed contract rules, specific triggers for YES/NO resolution, or any special settlement conditions. The only date mentioned is "Nov 1, 2026," which is stated as the "Max payout" date.
Available Contracts
Market options and current pricing
| Outcome bucket | Yes (price) | No (price) | Last trade probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | $0.98 | $0.04 | 98% |
| Texas | $0.98 | $0.04 | 98% |
| Ohio | $0.98 | $0.06 | 97% |
| Missouri | $0.97 | $0.06 | 97% |
| Florida | $0.97 | $0.05 | 96% |
| Louisiana | $0.97 | $0.05 | 95% |
| Tennessee | $0.94 | $0.07 | 94% |
| North Carolina | $0.95 | $0.07 | 93% |
| Alabama | $0.90 | $0.12 | 88% |
| Virginia | $0.08 | $0.93 | 7% |
| Utah | $0.10 | $0.94 | 6% |
| Georgia | $0.04 | $0.99 | 5% |
| Washington | $0.04 | $0.96 | 4% |
| New York | $0.04 | $0.98 | 3% |
| Illinois | $0.03 | $0.98 | 3% |
| Indiana | $0.03 | $0.99 | 3% |
| Minnesota | $0.03 | $0.99 | 3% |
| Wisconsin | $0.02 | $0.98 | 2% |
| Kansas | $0.02 | $0.98 | 2% |
| Arizona | $0.03 | $0.98 | 2% |
| Maryland | $0.02 | $0.99 | 2% |
| Mississippi | $0.03 | $0.98 | 2% |
| Nebraska | $0.02 | $0.99 | 2% |
| New Jersey | $0.03 | $0.99 | 2% |
| South Carolina | $0.04 | $0.99 | 1% |
Market Discussion
As of July 2026, nine states—California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah—implemented new congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections [^][^]. This unusual wave of mid-decade redistricting was largely driven by partisan efforts, pressure from President Trump, and U.S. Supreme Court rulings that weakened the Voting Rights Act [^][^]. While new maps were enacted in Louisiana, efforts in Alabama were blocked in federal court, and redistricting attempts in South Carolina died [^][^].
4. What are the key legal challenges or referendums that could force states like Missouri or Louisiana to redraw their maps before the 2026 midterms?
| Missouri Referendum Rejected | August 4, 2026 [^][^][^] |
|---|---|
| Louisiana Old Map Struck Down | April 29, 2026 [^][^][^][^] |
| Louisiana New Map Enacted | May 29, 2026 [^][^][^][^] |
New congressional maps in Missouri and Louisiana are confirmed for the 2026 midterms, with current legal challenges not expected to force any redraws. In Missouri, the Secretary of State rejected a referendum on August 4, 2026, which sought to overturn a new GOP-drawn map, asserting that voter referendums are not appropriate for such matters [^][^][^]. Earlier legal challenges contesting the map's compactness and the authority for a special session were dismissed by the Missouri Supreme Court, despite efforts by opponents to place the map on the ballot via a referendum petition [^]. The state originally enacted its new congressional map in September 2025 [^].
Louisiana enacted a new congressional map following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court determined that Louisiana's previous congressional map constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander [^][^][^][^]. Following this decision, a new map was enacted on May 29, 2026, which revised one of the state's two majority-Black districts [^][^][^][^]. This change is projected to result in a 5-1 Republican-Democrat delegation split, and despite threats of further legal action from Democrats, this new map is confirmed for use in the 2026 midterms [^][^].
Both states' new maps are part of a national mid-decade redistricting trend. Missouri and Louisiana join other states in redrawing congressional districts ahead of the 2026 elections [^][^][^][^][^][^][^]. The legal and political outcomes in both states ensure their new maps will be utilized in the upcoming federal elections.
5. How do the projected net partisan seat gains from mid-decade redistricting compare between Republican-led states like Florida and Texas versus Democrat-led states like California and New York?
| Republican Projected House Seat Gains | 16–17 U.S. House seats [^][^][^][^] |
|---|---|
| Democrat Projected House Seat Gains | up to 6 seats [^][^][^][^] |
| Key Republican Redistricting States | Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Alabama, Louisiana [^][^][^][^][^][^][^] |
Republican-led states projected significant congressional seat gains from redistricting. These states were projected to achieve substantially higher net partisan seat gains from mid-decade redistricting for the 2025–2026 cycle. Republicans pursued redistricting to gain congressional seats in states including Texas, Florida, and Tennessee [^][^]. Overall, Republicans were projected to gain as many as 16–17 U.S. House seats through new maps implemented in states such as Texas, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana [^][^][^][^]. Florida and Texas successfully enacted their new congressional maps in time for the 2026 midterm elections [^][^][^].
Democrats also sought advantages, but with fewer projected gains. In contrast, Democrats sought to redraw lines to secure party advantages in states like California and Virginia [^][^]. Democrats were projected to gain up to 6 seats through new maps in California and Utah [^][^][^][^]. While California redrew its maps before the 2026 midterms [^][^][^][^], New York did not implement a new map for the 2026 election cycle after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a lower court's ruling in March 2026 [^][^][^][^][^][^]. However, New York is actively pursuing or considering new maps for the 2028 election cycle [^][^][^][^][^][^].
6. What evidence from state court dockets indicates whether states like Ohio or North Carolina will face successful challenges to their newly enacted 2026 maps?
| Ohio Map Approval | October 31, 2025 [^][^][^][^] |
|---|---|
| Ohio Active Litigation | No active lawsuits challenging 2026 maps (as of August 6, 2026) [^][^] |
| North Carolina Active Litigation | No active lawsuits challenging 2026 maps (as of August 6, 2026) [^][^] |
Ohio's 2026 congressional map faces no current successful legal challenges. This bipartisan map received unanimous approval from the Ohio Redistricting Commission on October 31, 2025, and is currently in effect for the 2026 midterm elections [^][^][^][^]. The state has already conducted its 2026 primary elections using these maps. As of August 6, 2026, there are no active lawsuits challenging Ohio's newly enacted congressional map [^][^][^][^].
North Carolina's 2026 map is also in effect, despite ongoing legal complexities. Enacted in late October 2025, the new congressional map for North Carolina likewise remains in effect for the 2026 midterms [^][^]. A federal court ruling in November 2025 determined that partisan-gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable political questions [^][^][^]. However, other constitutional and Voting Rights Act claims related to the map are still pending a full trial [^][^][^]. North Carolina has proceeded to hold its 2026 primary elections under these maps, and as of August 6, 2026, there are no active lawsuits challenging the newly enacted 2026 congressional maps [^][^][^][^].
7. Based on state legislative calendars and candidate filing deadlines, which potential states face the most significant time constraints to enact new maps for the 2026 midterms?
| States with new 2026 maps | 10 states [^][^][^] |
|---|---|
| NY 11th CD redraw deadline | February 6, 2026 [^] |
| Election administration status for 2026 | Underway in many jurisdictions [^][^][^] |
Most states now face significant time constraints for 2026 redistricting. As of August 6, 2026, there is no significant remaining activity for enacting new congressional maps for the 2026 midterms. This is because election administration, including ballot printing and early voting, is already underway in many jurisdictions [^][^][^]. Consequently, any state that has not yet enacted its maps for the 2026 midterms would now face significant time constraints.
Ten states have enacted new congressional maps, though some face challenges. Alabama, California, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Louisiana have enacted new congressional maps for the 2026 midterms [^][^][^]. However, Alabama's congressional map remains in limbo; a 2023 Legislature-drawn map is currently blocked, and the state continues to use the map created by a court-appointed special master for the 2024 elections [^][^]. Additionally, in January 2026, a New York state judge ordered the state's redistricting commission to redraw the 11th Congressional District map by February 6, 2026, due to findings of unconstitutional dilution of voting power [^].
Other states face delays or are targeting the 2028 election cycle. South Carolina will utilize its existing congressional map for the 2026 midterms after the state Senate failed to pass a new map during a special session that adjourned on May 26, 2026 [^][^]. Virginia's efforts to enact a new congressional map were halted after the Virginia Supreme Court blocked the certification of a constitutional amendment on May 8, 2026, which was intended to authorize the redrawing of districts [^][^]. Furthermore, efforts in states like Georgia and various others are explicitly aimed at the 2028 election cycle rather than the 2026 midterms [^][^].
8. What is the current legislative status of redistricting efforts in states like Georgia or New York for the 2026 election cycle?
| Georgia 2026 Map Status | No new congressional maps enacted as of August 2026 [^][^][^][^] |
|---|---|
| New York 2026 Map Status | Existing map to be used for 2026 election cycle [^][^][^] |
| Supreme Court Intervention (NY) | March 2, 2026 [^][^][^] |
Georgia will use existing congressional maps for the 2026 election. As of August 2026, Georgia has not enacted new congressional maps for the 2026 midterm elections [^]. Republican leadership explicitly decided against holding a special redistricting session, citing worries about mobilizing Democratic voters and the existence of ongoing litigation concerning the maps [^][^][^][^]. Consequently, Georgia's congressional map for the 2026 cycle remains subject to legal challenges, with no new boundaries having been implemented [^][^].
New York's 2026 congressional map remains unchanged after court actions. In New York, a state judge initially ordered a redraw of the congressional map in January 2026, specifically targeting the 11th Congressional District due to racial gerrymandering claims [^][^]. However, this decision was overturned when the U.S. Supreme Court intervened on March 2, 2026, blocking the redraw [^][^][^]. As a result, the existing congressional map will be utilized for the 2026 election cycle in New York [^][^][^].
9. What Could Change the Odds
Key Catalysts
As of August 2026, ten states enacted new congressional maps for the 2026 midterms: Alabama, California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah [^] [^] . Nine states successfully redrew their congressional maps [^][^], while Alabama's maps remain blocked, continuing to use maps drawn by a court-appointed special master from the 2024 election cycle [^][^]. This wave of mid-decade redistricting was largely triggered by an April 2026 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Louisiana v. Callais) that weakened the federal Voting Rights Act, enabling states to potentially reshape districts previously protected as minority-access districts [^][^][^]. Pressure from President Donald Trump and Republican-led legislatures' pursuit of a House majority edge also prompted these efforts [^][^][^].
Redistricting efforts concluded with varied outcomes. South Carolina's efforts to enact new maps failed, leading to the continued use of its existing map [^][^]. In Virginia, the Virginia Supreme Court blocked the certification of a new map on May 8, 2026, citing significant legal hurdles [^][^]. Although 2026 map-drawing is largely concluded, pending litigation continues to threaten the stability of current maps as the November elections approach [^][^]. Beyond the 2026 cycle, states including Georgia, Mississippi, New York, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington are exploring or preparing for future redistricting efforts for the 2028 election cycle [^].
Key Dates & Catalysts
- Expiration: November 08, 2026
- Closes: November 01, 2026
10. Decision-Flipping Events
- Trigger: As of August 2026, ten states enacted new congressional maps for the 2026 midterms: Alabama, California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah [^] [^] .
- Trigger: Nine states successfully redrew their congressional maps [^] [^] , while Alabama's maps remain blocked, continuing to use maps drawn by a court-appointed special master from the 2024 election cycle [^] [^] .
- Trigger: This wave of mid-decade redistricting was largely triggered by an April 2026 U.S.
- Trigger: Supreme Court ruling (Louisiana v.
12. Historical Resolutions
No historical resolution data available for this series.
