The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed for now a new California voting map that could help Democrats gain up to five seats in Congress, the latest twist in a national fight between liberals and conservatives seeking advantage in this year’s midterm elections.
The justices cleared the state to use a map pushed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and approved by voters that was intended to offset a redistricting effort by Republicans in Texas sought by President Donald Trump. The Texas map could net the GOP up to five additional seats.
The high court’s ruling will remain in effect while a lawsuit challenging California’s map works its way through the courts. The Supreme Court ruled in December that the Texas map was constitutional, so many legal experts expected the justices to approve the California map as well.
The justices did not provide a rationale for their decision in the brief order. There were no noted dissents.
Democrats and Republicans in nearly two dozen states have taken or explored the unusual step of redrawing congressional voting maps mid-decade to try to secure partisan advantage during the 2026 elections. The high-stakes efforts could determine control of the narrowly divided House of Representatives.
Typically, states alter congressional boundaries only after the census, once every 10 years; the mid-decade push this year is the largest since the 1800s.
The Supreme Court’s majority rejected an argument by California Republicans that the state improperly relied on race to draw the map, in violation of the Constitution. The state GOP claimed Democrats tried to increase Latino voting power in the Central Valley to curry political support.
The landmark Voting Rights Act prevents states from drawing maps that dilute the power of minority voters, but states also can’t draw maps explicitly based on race because that would violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause. It can be a tricky needle to thread.
Republicans urged the court to rule quickly because candidates can begin submitting their paperwork to run in California’s new districts this coming Monday. They said the court should require the state use a 2021 map drawn up by the independent, nonpartisan Citizens Redistricting Commission that is normally tasked with drawing maps in the state. That map already yielded a heavily Democratic congressional delegation, but Republicans were able to win nine of the state’s 52 districts in 2024. The new map was designed to yield a 48-4 split.
“Even when a state claims it is engaged in a partisan rather than racial gerrymandering, it may not use race as a ‘proxy’ for politics,” California Republicans wrote in a court filing. “Regrettably, California has done precisely that.”
The state countered that its gerrymander was strictly a political move to gain Democrats more seats, which is allowed by law. They said state Republicans had no evidence that race was a motivating factor in drawing the map. Texas made almost identical arguments about partisanship versus race in successfully defending its map.
It would be “strange for California to undertake a mid-decade restricting effort with the predominant purpose of benefitting Latino voters and then enact a new map that contains an identical number of Latino-majority districts,” state officials wrote in a Supreme Court filing.
After Texas lawmakers approved that state’s new map in August at the urging of Trump, Newsom announced California would try to counter the effort.
“California will not sit idle as Trump and his Republican lapdogs shred our country’s democracy before our very eyes,” Newsom said in a statement at the time.
In November, the state’s voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50, which allowed the state to temporarily bypass the redistricting commission. The move was seen as a major political victory for Democrats and Newsom, who could run for president.
Republicans sued. A divided panel of district court judges refused to block the new map, before the state Republicans filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration backed California’s GOP.
Other states have also jumped into the redistricting fray, including Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina and Utah, which enacted new maps favoring Republicans. Blue states, including Virginia, Maryland and Washington, are working on their own redistricting plans.
In late January, a Virginia judge ruled the process Democrats used to create a constitutional amendment to increase Democratic seats in Congress was illegal. Democrats vowed to appeal.
The redistricting war is only one legal factor that could influence the outcome of the this year’s midterms. The Supreme Court is also considering the legality of the last remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states to draw maps under certain circumstances that allow minority voters to elect candidates of their choice.
The justices seemed inclined to limit or strike down Section 2 during arguments in the case in October. Such a ruling could touch off a nationwide redistricting scramble that could result in roughly a dozen Black legislators losing their seats, mostly in the South.
The case is also part of a busy term at the Supreme Court, which is dealing with election- and voting-related issues. The justices are weighing whether to restrict laws that allow states to count mail-in ballots that arrive after polls close as long as they are postmarked by Election Day.
In another case, the justices cleared the way for an Illinois congressman to challenge the state’s mail-in ballot law. Trump supporters have targeted mail-in ballot rules in a number of states after the president falsely claimed he lost the 2020 election because of voting fraud.
In a third case, the justices will decide whether to knock down restrictions on coordinated campaign spending between political parties and federal candidates.
The post Supreme Court clears way for California voting map that bolsters Democrats appeared first on Washington Post.
