Court Ruling Fuels Redistricting Fight Across the Nation

The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause removed federal courts from judging partisan gerrymandering, a move that has set the stage for new maps that favor one party over another. States now redraw districts with a focus on political advantage, and the courts have largely stepped back. This shift has led to aggressive map changes in big states like Texas and California, which each aim to flip up to five seats for their preferred party. Texas’s legislature, backed by former President Trump, pushed a new map that could turn five Democratic seats into Republican ones. California responded by redrawing its districts to flip up to five Republican seats back to Democrats. Both states have the most seats in the House because of their large populations. Other states are also engaged. Democrats in Virginia, Maryland and New York are drawing districts to gain seats, while Republicans in Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida do the same. The result is a nationwide competition to shape electoral boundaries in favor of each party. Many voters feel uneasy about this practice. A recent poll showed that 61 % of Americans think these new maps harm democracy, with Democrats and Republicans expressing similar concerns.Law professors have warned that gerrymandering lets politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around. The practice is not new, but the timing is unusual. Redistricting normally follows a census every ten years, yet states are now making mid-decade changes. These adjustments bypass the usual checks that come with census‑driven redistricting. The court’s ruling also clarified that racial gerrymandering remains illegal, though proving it is harder. However, the decision did not prevent state courts from striking down unfair maps, and many still choose not to intervene. The Supreme Court’s recent approvals of the Texas and California maps highlight a deep divide. In both cases, challengers argued that race was used illegally, but the justices sided with the states, citing partisan motives. This outcome reinforces the idea that political advantage can override concerns about fairness. The stakes are high for the upcoming midterm elections. A narrow Republican majority in the House means every seat matters, and a shift could open investigations into former President Trump’s administration. The public’s distrust of gerrymandering suggests that the practice may undermine confidence in democracy itself.