The Supreme Court has 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 vie for control of the U.S. House.
California voters approved the redistricting plan last year in reaction to a new GOP-favored map in Texas that was designed to help Republicans gain five House seats. In a brief, unsigned order, the court denied an emergency request from the California Republican Party to block California’s plan. The state GOP had argued the map violated the Constitution by prioritizing race over partisan considerations, but a federal lower court rejected that claim.
The decision follows the high court’s earlier approval of the Texas map, which ignited a nationwide battle over gerrymandering by increasing the GOP’s chances of winning additional seats. In its December order on the Texas case, the court noted several states recently redrew districts in ways predicted to favor the dominant party. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote that the impetus behind both Texas’ and California’s maps was “partisan advantage pure and simple.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that federal courts should not review claims of partisan gerrymandering. Still, the California case drew distinct attention from the federal government: the Justice Department supported Texas’ redistricting but opposed California’s, calling it “tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” The administration said the California case differed from Texas because of filing deadlines and because the California GOP and the federal government had proposed alternative maps that would achieve California’s stated partisan aims.
Democrats view California’s new map as a counterweight to Republican gerrymanders like Texas’, potentially canceling out each other’s partisan gains. But redistricting battles continue across the country. In New York, Republican 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 that 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; 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 also remains before the Supreme Court this term. The court has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s map; oral arguments in October suggested the conservative majority may further weaken the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Such a ruling could spur new rounds of congressional gerrymandering and, according to analyses, contribute to the largest-ever decline in Black representation in Congress.
Edited by Benjamin Swasey
