If the Supreme Court knocks down part of the Voting Rights Act in the coming months, the effects could be felt as soon as the 2026 midterm elections.
But it would come down to timing.
If Section 2 of the law were to be found unconstitutional, states across the country would be free — though not required — to redraw their congressional and state legislative lines without regard to protecting the voting power of minority communities.
But the court often does not issue major opinions until late in its term, often in June or early July. That would be well past many states’ filing deadlines and primary elections for the November 2026 election, and make the introduction of new maps for the midterms all but impossible.
The court could move more quickly, however, and issue a ruling in December or January, a rare though not impossible outcome given that the justices have heard the case once before and chose to rehear it early in their new term, which began last week. Were that to happen, state legislatures could work quickly to redraw their maps in time for primary elections next year.
“The calendar is the most significant constraint on this,” said Kareem Crayton, a vice president at the Brennan Center for Justice. “And while some state legislators have attempted to try to change that, I think the later a decision arrives, the less likely there’s going to be rethinking of existing maps that are on the books now.”
Of course, with the Trump administration pushing states to draw maps with more safe Republican seats ahead of the midterms, it is possible that some states would jump at the opportunity to remake theirs even if a favorable decision arrives late in the calendar.
Were the court to rule in a way that allowed states to redistrict to eliminate majority Black districts — which have historically elected Democrats — it would not necessarily be popular with incumbents from both parties. Redrawing majority Black districts would most likely involve dispersing those voters across more districts, potentially endangering Republican incumbents who now represent safe districts. New districts also could face further legal challenges.
Such disputes over newly drawn maps, with courts as the final arbiters, could turn on what is known as the Purcell principle. That legal theory stems from a contested Supreme Court ruling from 2006, Purcell v. Gonzalez, that came to be understood to disfavor court-mandated changes to voting procedures close to elections.
Nick Corasaniti is a Times reporter covering national politics, with a focus on voting and elections.
The post Could a Supreme Court Ruling on Election Maps Affect the Midterms? Timing Matters. appeared first on New York Times.