How the Supreme Court cleared the path for Trump’s mid-decade gerrymanders
By Michael Jones
Republicans in Texas have pushed through new gerrymandered maps in both chambers of the state legislature, sending them to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk for his signature. Within hours of the Texas Senate’s passage of the maps, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation to hold a November special election to redraw his state’s maps in a blue-state counterpunch to President Donald Trump’s unprecedented demand that Republicans entrench their power mid-decade.
Trump’s gambit is possible because the Supreme Court has spent more than a decade dismantling the safeguards that once protected voters from mid-decade power grabs. By steadily loosening limits on money in politics, gutting voting rights protections and shielding partisan mapmakers from federal oversight, the Court cleared the path for Trump to pressure red states—and for governors like Abbott to follow through.
“Voting rights are under attack at an intensity not seen since the Jim Crow era,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles County in Congress, serves on the House Judiciary Committee and supports Newsom’s plan to neutralize Texas’s new map, told me. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against the voter and with those who seek to silence and suppress the right to vote. These decisions are a slap in the face to voters and a betrayal of our most fundamental right.”
It started in 2010, when the Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC struck down limits on corporate and outside spending. That ruling opened the floodgates for billionaires and dark-money groups to pour millions of dollars into shaping elections. Beyond ad buys, this money also helped bankroll the legal and political infrastructure behind today’s redistricting fights.
Three years later, in Shelby v. Holder, the justices invalidated the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance formula. States like Texas, once required to get federal approval before changing their election laws, were suddenly free to redraw districts without Washington looking over their shoulder. The predictable result was maps that diluted the power of voters of color, and as Kamlager-Dove argues, opened the floodgates to widespread voter suppression tactics.
In 2019, the Court went even further in Rucho v. Common Cause, ruling that partisan gerrymandering was a “political question” beyond the reach of federal courts. The decision told lawmakers they could manipulate district lines for partisan gain without fear of judges striking them down, effectively greenlighting endless, mid-decade redraws.
By 2023, the Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard struck down affirmative action in college admissions, fueling a broader campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion. While not directly about redistricting, the ruling sent a political signal that protections for racial minorities were increasingly vulnerable. State legislatures took the cue and have since moved more aggressively to weaken minority representation.
Finally, in Trump v. United States last year, the Court’s decision granted presidents sweeping immunity for their official acts. That shield emboldened Trump to openly pressure red-state legislatures into redrawing maps mid-decade, an extraordinary power play that, thanks to the Court, now qualifies as “official presidential business.”
“These rulings prove how fragile democracy is, how imperative it is that our branches of government are separate and in command of their jurisdictional authority, and why we must use our people power now more than ever,” Kamlager-Dove said. “Judges may wear the black robes, but they are not immune from public opinion. They must, however, respect the law and their oath to the country over that of an individual.”
To be fair, the Court hasn’t only empowered partisan mapmakers. In recent years, it has occasionally surprised observers by reinforcing guardrails against the most extreme abuses of power.
In Merrill v. Milligan (2022) and again in Allen v. Milligan (2023), the justices upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, ordering Alabama to create an additional majority-Black district and forcing the state to comply after it initially refused. Those rulings reaffirmed that racial gerrymanders remain illegal when plaintiffs can marshal enough evidence.
The Court also upheld the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), giving states a reform path outside of partisan legislatures. And in Moore v. Harper (2023), the justices rejected the “independent state legislature theory,” preserving judicial review of election laws under state constitutions.
These cases show that the Court has not completely abandoned oversight of redistricting or voting rights. There are still legal pathways for voters and reformers to challenge maps. But those victories remain exceptions to a broader trend and often come too late to change the immediate political reality, which brings me to my next point.
Litigation is certain to follow in Texas and in any other state that attempts to redraw its maps mid-decade. Civil rights groups have already shown they can notch wins in court, but the timing almost always favors those in power. Maps that judges eventually strike down still stand through at least one election cycle, giving Republicans the immediate advantage in 2026. In other words, the courts may act after the fact, but rarely fast enough to prevent the damage at the ballot box.
In the meantime, Kamlager-Dove says members of Congress should be proposing automatic voter registration, voting holidays, funding for civics lessons in school and the automatic right for every American to vote.
But for all the legal theories and courtroom battles likely to unfold in the months ahead, the fight over these maps fundamentally boils down to whether Americans believe their voices still matter at the ballot box.
“The fact that Republicans are working so feverishly to take away your right to vote should tell you just how important and powerful the right to vote is,” Kamlager-Dove told me. “Voting is a right. We all should have it. It is our choice to activate it, but it should never be taken away, which is what they are trying to do now through court actions. It is much easier to give up your power when you feel powerless. Don’t give up your power.”
Michael Jones is an independent Capitol Hill correspondent and contributor for COURIER. He is the author of Once Upon a Hill, a newsletter about Congressional politics.
