The Supreme Court has allowed California to use a newly adopted congressional map for this year’s midterm elections, rejecting an emergency request from the California Republican Party that sought to block the plan. The unsigned order removes a legal obstacle to districts drawn in a plan that Democrats said was intended to counteract Republican-favored maps elsewhere.
California voters approved the redistricting plan last year in part as a response to a Republican-drawn map in Texas that sought to increase GOP opportunities for additional House seats. The state GOP argued the California map was driven principally by race rather than partisan considerations; a lower federal court had rejected that claim. The Supreme Court’s brief order declined to halt implementation of the map for the upcoming election.
The decision follows a December Supreme Court order that let the Texas map stand. In that earlier matter, the Court noted that several states had redrawn districts in ways expected to favor each state’s dominant party and observed that California’s plan was adopted explicitly to counter Texas’ changes. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote in a concurrence that the motive behind both maps was “partisan advantage pure and simple.” The Court has previously held that federal courts generally may not review claims of partisan gerrymandering.
The Justice Department under the Trump administration supported the Texas redistricting effort but opposed California’s, calling it “tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” The government argued the California case differed from Texas because of candidate filing deadlines and because the state GOP and the federal government had proposed alternative maps intended to achieve similar partisan outcomes without the alleged racial considerations.
Democrats framed California’s map as a counterbalance to Republican gains in Texas and other states; with both the Texas and California maps left intact, their net partisan effects could largely offset one another. Meanwhile, redistricting disputes are unfolding nationwide.
In New York, Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis and state GOP election officials are appealing a judge’s order to redraw her district after a finding that it diluted the combined voting strength of Black and Latino residents. In Utah, two House Republicans have filed a federal suit challenging a court-selected congressional plan that could add a Democratic seat; the state legislature is seeking to block that map for this year’s election. In Virginia, a judge ruled that a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting was advanced improperly and therefore violated state law; that ruling is being appealed.
Redistricting remains a major issue before the Supreme Court this term. The justices have yet to issue a decision in a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map; October oral arguments suggested the Court’s conservative majority may consider further changes to the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a shift that analysts warn could prompt additional partisan redistricting and contribute to reduced Black representation in Congress.