In a stunning move, the Republican Supreme Court has ruled that California's newly drawn gerrymandered maps may take effect during the 2026 midterms, potentially handing Democrats five more seats in the US House. The decision comes as no surprise to those familiar with the Court's recent actions.
Just last January, the Court issued a similar order in the Texas gerrymandering case, Abbott v. LULAC, which allowed Republican-drawn maps to take effect despite allegations of partisan manipulation. This decision set a high bar for future challenges to gerrymandered maps, making it difficult for plaintiffs to succeed.
The Republican justices' willingness to uphold Democratic gerrymanders in Tangipa v. Newsom suggests that they are more concerned with protecting their own party's power than with applying the law consistently. While some may argue that this decision is a partisan victory for Democrats, others see it as a continuation of the Court's long-standing project to dismantle anti-gerrymandering laws.
The Republican justices have made it clear in recent decisions that they are committed to letting state lawmakers gerrymander their states without significant judicial oversight. The 2020 Supreme Court case Rucho v. Common Cause effectively eliminated federal courts' ability to hear lawsuits challenging partisan redistricting, and more recently, the Court's ruling in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP has declared that a legislature can pursue partisan ends when it engages in redistricting.
These decisions have significant implications for the future of gerrymandering in American politics. While it is unlikely that the Court would allow a straightforward example of racial gerrymandering to survive judicial scrutiny, the high barriers imposed by LULAC and other recent decisions mean that plaintiffs will face an extremely challenging burden if they choose to challenge such maps.
Ultimately, the Tangipa decision reflects the Republican justices' deep-seated ideological commitment to partisan redistricting. By allowing a Democratic gerrymander to take effect, the Court is sending a clear message about its priorities and its willingness to bend the law in ways that benefit the party in power.
Just last January, the Court issued a similar order in the Texas gerrymandering case, Abbott v. LULAC, which allowed Republican-drawn maps to take effect despite allegations of partisan manipulation. This decision set a high bar for future challenges to gerrymandered maps, making it difficult for plaintiffs to succeed.
The Republican justices' willingness to uphold Democratic gerrymanders in Tangipa v. Newsom suggests that they are more concerned with protecting their own party's power than with applying the law consistently. While some may argue that this decision is a partisan victory for Democrats, others see it as a continuation of the Court's long-standing project to dismantle anti-gerrymandering laws.
The Republican justices have made it clear in recent decisions that they are committed to letting state lawmakers gerrymander their states without significant judicial oversight. The 2020 Supreme Court case Rucho v. Common Cause effectively eliminated federal courts' ability to hear lawsuits challenging partisan redistricting, and more recently, the Court's ruling in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP has declared that a legislature can pursue partisan ends when it engages in redistricting.
These decisions have significant implications for the future of gerrymandering in American politics. While it is unlikely that the Court would allow a straightforward example of racial gerrymandering to survive judicial scrutiny, the high barriers imposed by LULAC and other recent decisions mean that plaintiffs will face an extremely challenging burden if they choose to challenge such maps.
Ultimately, the Tangipa decision reflects the Republican justices' deep-seated ideological commitment to partisan redistricting. By allowing a Democratic gerrymander to take effect, the Court is sending a clear message about its priorities and its willingness to bend the law in ways that benefit the party in power.
... it's been pretty clear that the Republican justices have been trying to consolidate their power. I mean, five more seats for Democrats? Yeah, that's a win for them, but at what cost to our democracy? 
Gerrymandering is already a major problem in this country and if we let it slide like this... it's just gonna get worse 
I guess what worries me is that this sets a precedent for even more partisan redistricting in the future... and who's gonna stand up against it? 
thinkin bout this decision, it's like they're playin with fire, know? gotta have boundaries & checks on power, or else it's just gonna keep gettin bigger & more unfair 
. gotta remember, the game is rigged, but that don't mean we give up 
.
! It's like they're just rubber-stamping whatever the Republican Party wants, no matter how unfair or partisan it is. I mean, come on, a Democratic gerrymander gets to take effect? That's not justice, that's just politics as usual 
. I'm all about fairness and equality, and this decision just feels so... unfair 
.