Maps

Nov. 21 (UPI) — A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday night at least temporarily paused a lower court’s decision to throw out Texas’ new congressional map to potentially add five House seats for Republicans.

Justie Samuel Alito, chosen to decide on emergency appeals in the state, granted the request, writing it “is hereby administratively stayed” with a response to the application to be filed by 5 p.m. Monday.

So, this puts the block on hold until the full court decides.

Earlier Friday, state lawyers formally asked for an emergency stay to allow the map borders that were approved this summer by the legislature.

On Tuesday, a three-member panel in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas threw out the mapsin a 2-1 vote.

President Donald Trump had urged Texas to change the maps to favor Republicans.

After the state filed its appeal, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a news release: “Texas engaged in partisan redistricting solely to secure more Republican seats in Congress and thereby better represent our state and Texans. For years, Democrats have aggressively gerrymandered their states and only cry foul and hurl baseless ‘racism’ accusations because they are losing.”

He described the legislation signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in August as Texas’ “Big Beautiful Map.”

The state had asked the high court by Monday night to decide on pausing the lower court ruling.

The lower court’s decision caused “chaos” for the election, the state said.

“Campaigning had already begun, candidates had already gathered signatures and filed applications to appear on the ballot under the 2025 map, and early voting for the March 3, 2026, primary was only 91 days away,” Texas officials told the Supreme Court.

Those seeking to run for House seats must declare their candidacy by Dec. 8.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, appointed by President Trump in his first term, and David Guaderrama, appointed by President Obama, threw out the maps.

Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith, nominated by President Ronald Reagan, dissented, writing: “In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved.

“If, however, there were a Nobel prize for fiction, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a prime candidate.”

In the 107 pages, he mentioned billionaire George Soros, a donor for Democrats, 17 times.

Brown, writing the majority opinion, directed the state to correct four districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

Brown focused on how the new map would affect the racial makeup of Texas’ congressional districts.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” Brown wrote. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

But Texas disagreed, saying: politics, not race, drove the new maps.

“This summer, the Texas Legislature did what legislatures do: politics,” the state told the high court.

Texas said the lower court ruling “erroneously rests on speculation and inferences of bad faith.” And it said the state GOP’s chief mapmaker worked with data on partisanship rather than race.

After the decision, Paxton wrote in a post on X that he would appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court. He added that he expects the Supreme Court to “uphold Texas’ sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

Republicans now hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats.

Missouri and North Carolina approved a new map that could create another Republican-leaning district in each state.

Unlike those Republican-dominant states, California voters approved the new map that potentially can add five Democratic seats. Proposition 50 was approved by a 64.4-35.6%. The breakdown now is 43 Democrats and nine Republicans.

Other states are considering changes.

The U.S. House party breakdown is 219 Republicans, 213 Democrats and three vacancies. On Thursday, Democrat Mikie Sherill resigned her seat because she was elected New Jersey’s governor earlier this month.

Voters’ approval of Proposition 50 means Democrats might win up to five additional seats in the US House of Representatives in 2026.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has joined a lawsuit against California over the state’s redistricting effort, which was approved by a landslide in the November 4 election.

On Thursday, the Department of Justice said it would seek to overturn California’s new map of congressional districts, which was passed through a ballot initiative with approximately 64 percent support.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

She accused California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, of attempting to stifle Republican voices in his state. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

The ballot measure, known as Proposition 50, is poised to redraw the boundaries of electoral districts to favour the Democrats in next year’s midterm elections.

The proposition was designed as a counterattack against Trump’s gerrymandering in Republican states.

In Texas, for instance, the Trump White House urged the state legislature to pass new congressional districts that would allow the Republicans the opportunity to win five more seats in the House of Representatives in 2026.

In August, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the new Republican-backed map into law.

Republicans also expect to gain one seat each from new maps in Missouri and North Carolina, and potentially two more in Ohio. Civil rights advocates have argued that the new boundaries in Texas and Missouri illegally disadvantage minority communities at the ballot box.

Proposition 50 in California means that Democrats might win as many as five additional seats in the House in 2026, in an explicit attempt to offset the new Texas congressional map.

However, the California Republican Party and 19 registered voters sued the state in federal court on November 5, a day after the election was held.

They claimed California’s redistricting effort violates provisions of the US Constitution by unlawfully favouring Hispanic communities.

The Justice Department has echoed those concerns in its complaint. It argues that California’s map “manipulates district lines in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race”.

Tonight, California sent a powerful message to Donald Trump. We will fight for our democracy. And we will win. pic.twitter.com/tEcPlxVbi4

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) November 5, 2025

In response, Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Governor Newsom, said, “These losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court.”

Newsom has emerged as a prominent Democratic critic of Trump, calling the president’s opposition to California’s ballot measure the “ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE”.

Newsom has confirmed he will consider a White House run in 2028 once the 2026 midterm elections are over.

California’s new district boundaries will apply for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections.

Normally, congressional districts in California are drawn by an independent commission, based on the results of a national census taken every 10 years.

Proposition 50 suspends that commission’s work for the next three national elections and instead adopts a map created by the state legislatures.

In theory, electoral maps should reflect the people who live in a given state. In reality, most boundaries are rejigged by the parties in power, in a process called gerrymandering. Legislatures in many states determine how the districts are drawn.

California’s new congressional map aims to dilute Republican voters’ power, in one case by uniting rural, conservative-leaning parts of far northern California with Marin County, a famously liberal coastal stronghold across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco.

The Justice Department is asking a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.

In an era of escalating climate disasters, the ability to translate data into life-saving action has never been more critical. For the Asia-Pacific region—the world’s most disaster-prone, this is not an abstract challenge but a daily reality. At the forefront of this battle is the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), which is leveraging artificial intelligence to close the gap between risk knowledge and on-the-ground resilience. In this exclusive Q&A, Kareff May Rafisura, Economic Affairs Officer at the ICT and Disaster Risk Reduction Division of ESCAP, provides a clear-eyed look at their innovative tool, SatGPT, and how it’s changing the game for communities from the remote village to the ministerial office.

1. It’s one thing to see a flood risk map, and another to break ground on a new levee. Could you walk us through how a local official might use SatGPT to confidently decide where to actually build?

Kareff May Rafisura, Economic Affairs Officer at the ICT and Disaster Risk Reduction Division of ESCAP: First, it’s worth noting that there’s growing rethinking within the science and policy communities on the long-term benefits and trade-offs of constructing artificial levees.

Going back to your question, understanding an area’s flood history is key to making smart infrastructure decisions. You wouldn’t build a levee on natural floodplains, for example. Without risk knowledge, levees might not protect communities effectively and could even cause problems downstream or in ecologically sensitive areas. SatGPT offers a rapid mapping service that helps local officials make risk-informed decisions. It significantly reduces the time and cost traditionally required to assess flood characteristics, such as frequency, spatial extent, and impacts, and converts that data into actionable information. This information is critical for decisionmakers who must weigh it alongside economic, social, and environmental considerations when determining whether, and where, to build a levee.

2. We often hear about getting tech “to the last mile.” Picture a rural community leader with a simple smartphone. How does SatGPT’s insight practically reach and help them make a life-saving decision?

Kareff: SatGPT’s strength lies in enhancing historical risk knowledge. It’s not designed to predict the next disaster, but rather to help communities prepare more effectively for it. For instance, when a rural leader needs to decide whether to evacuate ahead of a flood, she will still rely on early warnings from national meteorological services. What SatGPT can do is support smarter ex-ante planning—so that when early warning information arrives, the community is ready to respond quickly. This includes decisions on where to build shelters, how to lay out evacuation routes, and where to preposition relief supplies. These are all critical elements that must be in place to help avert disasters, as consistently demonstrated in the cyclone response histories of India and Bangladesh.

3. Floods are an urgent threat, but what about slower crises like droughts? Is the vision for SatGPT to eventually help with these less visible, but equally devastating, disasters?

Kareff: ESCAP coordinates the long-standing Regional Drought Mechanism, which has been supporting drought-prone countries in gaining access to satellite data, products, tools, and technical expertise—everything they need to conduct drought monitoring and impact assessments more effectively. Our support goes beyond making data available—we work with countries and partners to strengthen institutions and capacities, converting these data into actionable analytics and insights. We are currently working with three Central Asian countries in establishing their own Earth observation-based agricultural drought monitoring systems.

4. AI is powerful, but it can sometimes reflect our own blind spots. How are you ensuring SatGPT doesn’t accidentally worsen inequality by overlooking the most vulnerable communities in its models?

Kareff: You raised a valid concern. That’s why in our capacity development work, our participants combine SatGPT’s flood mapping with socio-economic data to pinpoint who’s most at risk and where. They work on use cases that unpack the exposure of essential services like hospitals and water treatment facilities. When these critical infrastructures fail, it’s the poorest who pay the highest price. That’s why it’s vital to understand the hazards that threaten them.

5. Governments have tight budgets. If you were making the pitch to a Finance Minister, what’s the most compelling argument for investing in SatGPT now versus spending on recovery later?

Kareff: Investing in reducing disaster risk – which involves measures taken before disasters occur to reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience (e.g., early warning systems, resilient infrastructure, land-use planning) – is far more cost-effective than recovery. Every dollar invested in disaster risk reduction can save multiple dollars in future losses. While the benefits are context-specific, a recent multi-country study found that for every $1 invested, the return can be as high as $10.50.

6. The region is innovating fast, with countries like Indonesia and Thailand building their own systems. How does SatGPT aim to be a good teammate and connect with these national efforts, rather than just adding another tool to the pile?

Kareff: That’s a good point. And beyond technological innovation, we’re also seeing progress in policy and institutional innovations being put in place. Our intention is not to replace national systems, but to show what’s possible when you make risk knowledge accessible and actionable. We work closely with our national counterparts with a focus on integrating SatGPT insights into existing workflows and systems-not reinventing them.

7. Training young professionals is key. Beyond the technical skills, what’s the most important lesson you hope they take away about using this technology responsibly?

Kareff: I’m glad you recognize that today’s most pressing need goes beyond technical expertise. That’s precisely why our technical capacity-building activities are held alongside youth forums to provide a platform for young people to engage in meaningful conversations around values and motivations. As stakeholders, we all share the responsibility of upholding safe, secure, and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems to support sustainable development.

8. Looking ahead a year, what would a “win” for SatGPT look like on the ground? Is it a specific number of communities better protected, or a faster warning time?

Kareff: Forecasting and enhancing the forecast lead times remains the responsibility of mandated early warning agencies. SatGPT is well-positioned to support efforts to protect more communities. By enhancing the historical understanding of floods, it can help improve the accuracy of early warning information, help communities proactively plan their response, and reduce disaster risk ex-ante. In that sense, I would say that effective SatGPT roll-out would amount to both gains in space and time – more communities being warned with improved lead times for mitigative response with more reliable historical data for granular risk characterization.

9. The document mentions turning the Jakarta Declaration into action. From your vantage point, what’s the biggest spark of progress you’ve seen so far?

Kareff: One of the most promising sparks of progress has been the strengthened regional cooperation aimed at enhancing the capacity of countries—especially the countries in special situations—to overcome barriers to accessing the benefits of innovative geospatial applications. With the support of ESCAP members, we are implementing field projects, providing capacity-building and technical assistance, facilitating expert exchange, and knowledge sharing across more than a dozen countries. These efforts are helping to develop space-based solutions from the ground up to tackle sustainable development challenges such as urban poverty, air pollution, droughts, floods, and crop biodiversity loss.

10. Finally, behind all the data and code, you mention this is about protecting lives. Has working on SatGPT given you a new perspective on what “resilience” truly means for a family facing a flood?

Kareff: Having lived and worked for the United Nations in some of the world’s most flood-prone countries, I’ve witnessed first-hand how the lack of historical data can lead to underinvestment in risk reduction. Tools like SatGPT and other digital innovations are not silver bullets, but they help close this gap by converting geospatial data into actionable insights – quickly and more accessibly – to guide communities to prepare and protect lives and livelihoods.

The conversation with Kareff May Rafisura underscores a pivotal shift in disaster risk management: from reactive recovery to intelligent, data-driven preparedness. SatGPT represents more than a technological achievement; it is a practical instrument of empowerment, ensuring that from the finance minister to the rural community leader, the best available knowledge informs the decisions that save lives and safeguard futures. In the fragile balance between human vulnerability and environmental force, such tools are not just helpful, they are essential. The future of resilience in the Asia-Pacific is being written today, not in the aftermath of disaster, but in the proactive, thoughtful application of innovation like SatGPT.