The Supreme Court's recent decision to allow California's new congressional map has sparked intense debate and raised questions about the future of American democracy. But here's where it gets controversial: while the court's ruling may seem like a win for Democrats, it could also have far-reaching implications for the balance of power in Congress. And this is the part most people miss...
California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom celebrated the court's decision, arguing that it will help Democrats win five additional U.S. House seats. But the court's order also cleared the way for the state's gerrymandered districts, which some argue is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The state's GOP argued that the map was primarily driven by race, not partisan politics, but a lower federal court rejected that claim.
The ruling on California's redistricting plan comes two months after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Texas map, which boosted the GOP's chances of winning five additional House seats. The court's December order in the Texas case stated that several states have redrawn their congressional districts to favor their dominant political party, and that Texas adopted the first new map, prompting California to respond with its own map to counteract what Texas had done.
But the 'impetus' for adopting both states' maps was 'partisan advantage pure and simple,' wrote Justice Samuel Alito in a concurring opinion, joined by fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that partisan gerrymandering is not reviewable by federal courts.
The Trump administration supported the Texas redistricting by Republicans, but opposed California's, describing it as 'tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.' The administration asserted that the case was different from Texas' due to the timing of the states' candidate filing periods and the fact that the California Republican Party and the federal government provided alternative maps that met California's 'stated partisan goals.'
Democrats are counting on California's map to help their party push back against Republican gerrymandering in Texas and other states. But with the court's ruling upholding both the Texas and California maps, the end result is that the two states may essentially cancel out each other's partisan gains.
Legal fights are still playing out over other new congressional maps, as Republican-led Florida and Democratic-led Maryland take steps to join the list of states that have redistricted before the midterms. In New York, Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis and GOP members of the state's elections board are appealing a state judge's order for a new redistricting plan that would redraw Malliotakis' district, which the judge found illegally dilutes Black and Latino voters' collective power. And in Virginia, a judge has ruled that a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting violates state law because the process Democratic state lawmakers used to advance it was improper.
Redistricting also remains an issue for the Supreme Court this term. It has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana's voting map, but the October oral arguments suggested that the court's conservative majority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Such a ruling could lead to new rounds of congressional gerrymandering — and the largest-ever decline in representation by Black members of Congress.
