Demonstrators rally outside of the Ohio Statehouse to protest gerrymandering and advocate for lawmakers to draw fair maps in September in Columbus, Ohio.
Patrick Aftoora-Orsagos/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Patrick Aftoora-Orsagos/AP
In the congressional gerrymandering fight between Republicans and Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm election, a number of states are keeping watch for a potential game changer from the U.S. Supreme Court.
During the rare rehearing of a Louisiana redistricting case in October, the court’s conservative majority appeared inclined to weaken the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 protections against racial discrimination in the political mapmaking process.
Such a ruling could spark a new wave of congressional redistricting, especially in the South, where voting is often racially polarized and Section 2 has long prevented the dilution of Black minority voters’ collective power. Without the current Section 2 protections, Republican-led southern states may undo districts where Black voters have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidates, who are usually Democrats.
This redrawing could give the GOP a sizable boost, as the party seeks to keep control of the House of Representatives.
When the Supreme Court would release its decision is crucial. Time is running out to redo maps, which have to be finalized ahead of a state’s filing deadline for candidates seeking to run in a primary election for the midterms.
“The earlier the decision comes, the more likely the decision is before the date for candidates to declare that they’re going to be running, and the more time there is for legislatures to meet and consider maps and redraw their maps,” says Nick Stephanopoulos, a professor specializing in election law at Harvard Law School.
The next batch of filing deadlines arrives in December. Still, Stephanopoulos notes these cut-off dates are “just products of state law.”
“If a state legislature that’s hellbent on gerrymandering wants to do so, it wouldn’t be especially surprising if that same legislature delayed the filing deadline, potentially even change the date of the primary election, in order to give themselves enough time to gerrymander,” Stephanopoulos says.
Last month, Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature shifted the state’s election calendar, pushing its cutoff date for candidate declarations from January to February, and the spring primary from April to May.
The change could take advantage of a possible earlier-than-usual decision from the Supreme Court, which typically releases major rulings in June. Louisiana had asked the justices for a decision in the state’s redistricting case early next year, given the calendar crunch.
In Alabama, which has a January deadline ahead of a May primary election, a Republican state lawmaker is proposing to allow a special primary to be held by August if a change to a voting map is “made at a time too late to be accommodated during the normal primary election schedule.”
There’s no definitive list of districts protected by Section 2
Which other states may rush to respond to a weakening of redistricting requirements under the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 is hard to predict, says Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school.
To begin with, Li explains, there is no definitive list of Section 2 districts that could be affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling because states usually don’t explain their reasoning for drawing the boundaries of a voting district the way they do. To come up with a list, “you’d have to go district by district and do a case-by-case assessment of whether there actually is Section 2 liability or not,” Li says.
And some states may start claiming a district was drawn to get in line with Section 2 even if the law would not have required an opportunity district for racial minority voters.
“It may just be an excuse to get rid of heavily minority districts even if there’s not a legal obligation to do so,” Li adds.
On the other hand, some Republican-led states may want to try to keep Section 2 districts that are Democratic-leaning in place.
“There are many places in the country where getting rid of Section 2 districts would make neighboring Republican districts much more competitive. And that may not be what Republicans want,” Li says. “It’s more efficient for Republicans to have a heavily Black, and thus heavily Democratic, district to sop up as many of these high-turnout Black voters as possible.”
Another wild card amid the ongoing mid-decade gerrymandering fight is how Democratic-led states would react in a redistricting world without Section 2’s current requirements.
“If blue states elsewhere observe Republicans massively gerrymandering, flipping 10 to 15 minority-opportunity districts and giving Republicans a big structural advantage in the battle for the U.S. House, I think there’s going to be enormous pressure to respond to offset those gerrymanders in blue states,” says Stephanopoulos at Harvard Law School. “At this point, the only remaining way to do that is by weakening some of the districts that are now held by minority-preferred candidates in blue states.”
Edited by Benjamin Swasey
