Have any states recently gained or lost seats and left or created single-district status?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No state has newly gained or lost U.S. House seats through the decennial apportionment cycle since the 2020 Census; current reporting instead documents a patchwork of mid‑cycle redistricting fights, court rulings and ballot measures that can shift how many districts are competitive or which party is favored — for example, Texas’s reinstated map could flip as many as five Democratic seats (Reuters) and California’s Proposition 50 would alter five California seats to favor Democrats [1] [2]. Ballot measures and state legislative actions, not apportionment, are driving changes to single‑district (at‑large) status or the partisan map in 2025–2026 reporting [3] [2].
1. No new apportionment changes — seats remain at 435, distribution based on 2020 census
The House remains at 435 seats with apportionment still tied to the 2020 Census for the upcoming 2026 elections; sources describe redistricting activity and legal fights but do not report any state gaining or losing seats via a new census count in this cycle [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention any change to the count of congressional seats allocated by state since 2020 [4].
2. Mid‑cycle redistricting — how states are changing single‑district dynamics without gaining seats
Several states have pursued mid‑cycle map changes that can effectively alter whether a state has more safe or competitive single‑member districts even though they kept the same number of seats. Ballotpedia and other trackers list California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Utah among states with new or potentially new congressional maps ahead of 2026 — these are redrawing lines, not adding or subtracting seats [3]. California’s Proposition 50, a legislatively referred amendment, would replace the state’s map and is projected to make five seats more favorable to Democrats [2].
3. Courts and the Supreme Court are central actors — Texas example
The Supreme Court reinstated a Texas congressional map that lower courts had blocked for likely racial discrimination; Reuters reports the reinstated map could flip as many as five Democratic seats to Republicans [1]. That decision does not change Texas’s number of seats, but it can change which districts are competitive and therefore the practical effect of single‑district status for particular communities within the state [1].
4. Special elections and member turnover are plentiful but don’t alter apportionment
Reporting documents a stream of special elections and member changes in the 119th Congress — resignations and special contests (for example, Tennessee’s 7th district special election) — but these are replacements within existing districts and do not change whether a state is single‑district or multi‑district [6] [7] [4]. The Green Papers notes all 435 seats remain up for the 2026 cycle, underscoring continuity of apportionment even amid turnover [4].
5. Political stakes: parties respond to redistricting, mid‑cycle sessions and ballot drives
Sources show both parties are reacting: Republican state officials in Texas and Missouri sought maps to net Republican seats; Democrats pushed California’s Proposition 50 and targeted state legislatures to shape future maps [3] [2] [8]. Analysts like Cook track these moves and caution that while many states redraw lines, the likeliest net effect across all states could be a wash — but individual states can see meaningful partisan swings [9].
6. What reporters and voters should watch next
Follow court rulings and ballot measure outcomes (California’s Prop 50) and any mid‑session redistricting calls (Missouri special session) because they determine which districts function as safe single‑member seats versus competitive ones [2] [3]. Cook Political and Ballotpedia are actively tracking these developments and project that redistricting will be a leading determinant of how many seats change hands in 2026, not reapportionment [9] [3].
Limitations and caveats: the available reporting focuses on mid‑cycle redistricting, legal rulings and ballot measures — it does not report any state apportionment gains or losses based on a new census in this period, and it does not provide a definitive national projection of seat flips beyond state‑level estimates [4] [9]. If you want a state‑by‑state rundown of map changes or the precise districts affected by court rulings and ballot measures, I can extract those specifics from the trackers cited (Ballotpedia, Cook, Reuters).