In federal cases where plaintiffs argue that a state’s map discriminated against a minority group, we’re predominantly seeing two grounds for suits. First, cases can center around alleged violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits electoral practices that discriminate against a racial or language minority group. In Section 2 cases, the plaintiffs will argue that district lines diluted the voting influence of a minority group, often by “cracking” it to spread it across multiple districts or “packing” it into fewer districts.

Cases can also focus on alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th and 15th amendments. Specifically, claims are built around the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which courts have ruled protects against the improper use of race in drawing districts — racial gerrymandering — and the 15th Amendment’s protections against limiting voting rights based on race. These legal frameworks are related — the VRA was created as an enforcement mechanism for the 15th Amendment — so these lines of argument can overlap.

Part of Florida’s congressional map could also change due to litigation over racial discrimination. Under the state’s old lines, a majority-minority 5th District with a plurality-Black population had stretched from Tallahassee to Jacksonville that regularly sent a Black Democrat to Congress. However, under pressure from Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, the Florida legislature drew a map that dissolved the old 5th, leaving only majority-white and solidly Republican seats in northern Florida.

In early September, a lower state court ruled that the map violated the state constitution because it had diminished the ability of Black voters to elect a candidate of their choice. In some ways, the ruling wasn’t a shock because the state had agreed in court proceedings that the map ran afoul of the state’s anti-diminishment provision. But the state argued that provision should be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, signaling a conservative line of argument against voting rights protections that could appear in future state and federal cases.

While unsuccessful in lower court, the state’s argument might find more receptive judges higher up the Florida judicial ladder. Although a state appeals court will consider the case first, it will likely end up in front of Florida’s Supreme Court. And the high court could decide for the state, especially because DeSantis’s five appointments to the court’s seven seats have made it much more conservative. In the meantime, civil rights groups have launched a second track of litigation in federal court, where they argued in late September hearings that the map violated the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Similar to Alabama and Louisiana, Georgia’s congressional map faces a legal challenge in federal court that claims its district lines dilute Black voting power, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The current map has four districts in which Black voters make up a majority or close to one, but the plaintiffs argue that because Black residents made up a significant portion of Georgia’s population growth — they now constitute one-third of all Georgians — the state should have one more district in which Black voters have sufficient clout to elect a member of their choice. A new map would probably create an opportunity for Democrats to pick up a seat; Republicans currently hold a nine-to-five edge in the state’s 14-seat congressional delegation.

However, the Georgia case is well behind the timelines in Alabama and Louisiana for any sort of final resolution. A lower federal court heard the case in early September and the judge told both sides to expect a ruling by Thanksgiving. But even if the lower court sides with the plaintiffs, the state would likely appeal, so it’s difficult to know just how long this process may take, much less what the result will be.

It’s unclear whether Louisiana will end up with a new congressional map ahead of the 2024 election. Like Alabama, Louisiana has faced litigation over claims that its district lines impermissibly diluted the influence of Black voters. In 2022, the GOP-controlled legislature implemented a map that maintained the state’s status quo of one majority-Black seat among six total districts. But Democrats and voting rights advocates argued that Louisiana, which has a population that’s about one-third Black, should have a second district in which Black voters could elect the member of their choice. A lower federal court agreed, ruling in June 2022 that the map violated the Voting Rights Act and ordering the state to draw a new map. The legislature appealed, but the Supreme Court put the Louisiana case on hold while deliberating over the similar redistricting case in Alabama. This allowed Louisiana’s map to be used in the 2022 election.

But a redraw of Louisiana’s map became a renewed possibility after the Supreme Court ruled in June 2023 that Alabama’s congressional lines violated the VRA. Following that decision, SCOTUS lifted its hold on the Louisiana case. Nonetheless, the case remains up in the air following a late September decision by a federal appeals court that canceled the lower court’s next hearing in early October, in which it was expected to approve a remedial map for Louisiana after the state failed to propose an alternate map in 2022. The plaintiffs have asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief to block the appeals court’s decision, arguing the appeals court ruled improperly and in a way that could delay the potential implementation of a new map beyond 2024. In the meantime, the appeals court’s decision gives Louisiana more time to defend the current map and consider new lines.