The Supreme Court has permitted California to use a recently approved congressional map for this year’s midterm elections, removing a legal obstacle to districts drawn to benefit Democrats as both parties vie for control of the U.S. House.
California voters adopted the redistricting plan last year as a Democratic response to a Republican-favored map in Texas that was designed to boost GOP chances of winning five 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 was driven principally by race rather than partisan considerations, a claim a lower federal court had rejected.
The decision follows a December Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Texas map to stand. In that earlier order, the court noted several states had redrawn districts in ways expected to favor each state’s dominant party, and observed that California’s map was explicitly adopted to counteract 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 may not review claims of partisan gerrymandering.
The Justice Department under the Trump administration supported the Texas redistricting but opposed California’s, calling it “tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” The government argued the California case differed from Texas due to the timing of candidate filing deadlines and because the California GOP and the federal government had proposed alternative maps that could meet the state’s partisan objectives.
Democrats view California’s map as a counterbalance to Republican gains in Texas and elsewhere; with both maps upheld, the states’ net partisan effects may largely offset one another. Meanwhile, multiple other redistricting battles are unfolding around the country.
In New York, Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis and GOP election officials are appealing a state judge’s order for a new congressional plan that found her district unlawfully diluted the combined voting strength of Black and Latino residents—an adjustment that could shift the district to Democrats. In Utah, two House Republicans have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a court-selected congressional map that could give Democrats an additional seat; the state legislature has sought to block that map for this year’s election. In Virginia, a judge ruled a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting was advanced improperly by Democrats and therefore violates state law; that decision is being appealed.
Redistricting remains a major issue before the Supreme Court this term. The justices have yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map; October oral arguments suggested the conservative majority may further weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a move that could prompt new rounds of congressional gerrymandering and contribute to what some analysts warn would be a large decline in Black representation in Congress. Edited by Benjamin Swasey.