On Friday, Republican legislators in Georgia released their long-awaited proposal to redraw Georgia's congressional map after a court struck it down in October for violating the Voting Rights Act. But it's unlikely to satisfy advocates for more nonwhite (and Democratic) representation.

The proposed map creates a new majority-Black district, the 6th, in the western Atlanta suburbs, as ordered by the court. But it also dismantles the 7th District in the eastern Atlanta suburbs, turning it from a majority-minority seat into one that is 67 percent white. The partisan upshot is that Georgia would maintain its current split of nine Republican-leaning seats and five Democratic-leaning seats (because the 6th District would flip from red to blue but the 7th would flip from blue to red).

Democrats and voting-rights advocates are already arguing that the new map is still illegal because of what it did to the 7th District. Indeed, the judge who struck down Georgia's old map wrote in his ruling, "The state cannot remedy the [Voting Rights Act] Section 2 violations described herein by eliminating minority opportunity districts elsewhere in the plans." However, it's not clear if the old 7th District was protected by the Voting Rights Act. At 33 percent white, 30 percent Black and 21 percent Hispanic, it did not have a majority (or anything close) of a certain type of voter. It did have a combined Black and Hispanic majority, and courts have previously ruled that such coalition districts may be protected by the Voting Rights Act as long as both minority groups vote similarly (among other preconditions). However, it's not clear if more conservative courts (i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court) will agree in this case. Therefore, you can expect further legal battles over this map should it pass the Georgia legislature.

On Friday, a Florida appeals court reversed a lower court’s ruling that North Florida’s congressional lines were unconstitutional, reinstating the strongly pro-Republican lines pushed through by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2022. That map eliminated a safely Democratic, predominantly Black district in North Florida despite the fact that the Florida Constitution prohibits diminishing the ability of Black voters to elect a candidate of their choice.

However, this is not going to be the last word on Florida’s map. The decision will almost certainly be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.

The New Mexico Supreme Court has upheld New Mexico’s congressional map. On Monday, all five justices — all of whom are Democrats — signed an order affirming a lower court’s decision that, while New Mexico’s map is a Democratic gerrymander, it is not egregious enough to be illegal.

This wasn’t one of the major redistricting court cases that we were waiting on (looking at you, New York), but it’s still bad news for Republicans, who miss out on a chance for an easy flip in New Mexico’s 2nd District in 2024. Democrats drew New Mexico’s congressional map to make all three seats winnable for them, which took the 2nd District from a seat that voted for Trump by 12 percentage points in 2020 to one that would have voted for Biden by 6. As a result, Democrat Gabe Vasquez was able to narrowly defeat Republican Yvette Herrell here in 2022.

On Thursday, a federal judge struck down Georgia’s congressional map, saying that it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The state has until Dec. 8 to draw a new map that adds an additional Black-opportunity seat in west metro Atlanta — although the state will likely try to appeal the decision.

Georgia currently has nine Republican representatives and five Democratic representatives, but it’s possible that this decision (if it holds up) could lead to Democrats flipping one of those Republican-held seats. But it’s also possible that Republicans in the Georgia legislature will comply with the judge’s order while also dismantling the safely blue 7th District, the one Democratic district in Georgia that is not predominantly Black. In this case, the partisan composition of the state’s congressional delegation would stay the same.

Ohio’s 2024 map is set, and it will be the same congressional district map as 2022. But the path Ohio took to this outcome was anything but straightforward. In November 2021, the Republican-controlled state government enacted a map where the GOP might have won as many as 13 of the state’s 15 districts. But in January 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the map as a partisan gerrymander, placing the map in the hands of the Ohio Redistricting Commission. With a 5-2 edge on the board, Republicans passed a second map in March 2022 that still gave the GOP a good chance of capturing at least 10 districts, if not more. Although the state’s high court ruled that this map was also unconstitutional in July 2022, by then the timeline for the case left the second map in place for the 2022 elections, in which Republicans won 10 of the state’s House seats.

The same map will now be used in 2024, too, after the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed legal challenges to the map in September. The plaintiffs who opposed the map had themselves sought a dismissal because they were less likely to have success before the state’s high court after the 2022 midterms, when Republicans captured a firmer majority with the retirement of Republican Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, who’d ruled against the state’s maps. If the mapmaking process had reopened for 2024, Republicans may have drawn lines even more favorable to the GOP. Under Ohio law, a map passed without bipartisan support can only remain in effect for two election cycles instead of a full decade, so because no Democrats supported the map currently in use, it will remain in effect through the 2024 election and then need to be redrawn before the 2026 election.

Before then, however, the state’s redistricting process could change due to a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment that proponents aim to put on the November 2024 ballot. The proposal would implement a 15-member commission made up of Republicans, Democrats and independents, with bans against the participation of recent officeholders, lobbyists or party officials. The amendment also includes measures against partisan gerrymandering.