The Supreme Court allowed California to use its new congressional map in this year’s midterm elections, clearing the way for districts drawn to favor Democrats as both parties compete for control of the U.S. House.
California voters approved the redistricting plan last year in part as a response to a GOP-favored map in Texas that was designed to help Republicans gain additional House seats. In a brief unsigned order, the high court denied an emergency request from the California Republican Party to block the plan. The state GOP argued the map violated the Constitution by prioritizing race over partisan considerations, but a federal lower court had rejected that claim.
The ruling comes after the court earlier approved the Texas map, a decision that helped ignite a nationwide fight over gerrymandering by increasing GOP chances of winning more seats. In its December order on the Texas case, the court noted several states had recently redrawn districts in ways expected to benefit the dominant party; one opinion described those efforts as driven by partisan advantage.
The Supreme Court has previously said federal courts should not resolve partisan gerrymandering claims. Still, the California dispute drew unusual attention from the federal government: the Justice Department backed Texas’s redistricting but opposed California’s, calling the latter tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The DOJ said the California case differed from Texas because of timing and because alternative maps proposed by the state GOP and the federal government would have achieved California’s stated partisan goals.
Democrats see California’s new map as a counterweight to Republican gerrymanders like Texas’s, potentially canceling out some partisan gains. But redistricting fights are continuing across the country. In New York, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis and GOP election officials are appealing a judge’s order for a new map that a court found diluted Black and Latino voting strength in her district; a redraw could make the seat more favorable to Democrats.
In Utah, two House Republicans filed a federal lawsuit challenging a state court-selected map that could give Democrats an additional House seat, and the Republican-controlled legislature has asked the state’s highest court to block that map for this election. In Virginia, a judge ruled a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting violated state law because of procedural defects, and Democrats are appealing.
Redistricting remains before the Supreme Court this term in other cases as well. A challenge to Louisiana’s map is pending; oral arguments last October suggested the court’s conservative majority might further weaken the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Analysts warn that such a ruling could prompt more aggressive congressional gerrymandering and contribute to a significant decline in Black representation in Congress.
Edited by Benjamin Swasey