3:35A perspective of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, July 1, 2024.Kevin Mohatt/Reuters
As Democrats seek strategies to postpone or potentially thwart Republican initiatives to revise electoral maps for partisan advantage prior to the 2026 midterm elections, they assert that they may not receive substantial support from federal courts.
A pivotal 2019 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court — Rucho v. Common Cause — largely excluded federal judges from addressing conflicts regarding partisan gerrymandering.
"Extreme partisanship in districting results in outcomes that reasonably seem inequitable. However, the incompatibility of such gerrymandering with democratic principles does not imply that the federal judiciary is the appropriate remedy," Chief Justice John Roberts noted.
The decision effectively barred legal challenges to strategically designed electoral maps that diminish the impact of specific voters based on their party affiliation.
"Federal judges lack the authority to redistribute political power between the two dominant political parties, as there is no plausible constitutional mandate nor legal parameters to guide their judgments," Roberts concluded in the ruling.
Race, on the other hand, presents a distinct issue — one that the Supreme Court has acknowledged allows for some judicial review under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Section 2 of the Act prohibits the denial or restriction of the right to vote based on race, which has traditionally been understood to encompass the creation of congressional districts that "crack" or "pack" communities of color to diminish their influence.
As recently as 2023, the Supreme Court indicated that lower courts could intervene in "instances of intense racial politics where the excessive role [of race] in the electoral process … deprives minority voters of equal opportunity to participate."
Members of the public wait to provide testimony as Texas legislators conduct a public hearing on congressional redistricting in Austin, Texas, Aug. 1, 2025.Eric Gay/AP
Some Democrats have started to claim that the Texas GOP initiative (and similar efforts in other states) is motivated by racial considerations.
"They are disrupting parts of Austin voters and then combining my district with [Democratic] Congressman [Lloyd] Doggett’s district, all with the aim of ensuring that voters of color have diminished influence in their elections, and so that Donald Trump secures his preferred congressional representative," Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar told ABC’s Selina Wang on Sunday.
Former Obama Attorney General and current voting rights advocate Eric Holder informed ABC News "This Week" co-anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that he is considering the option of new legal action under the Voting Rights Act. "This truly exacerbates what they have previously done and strengthens the case we have established," Holder remarked regarding Texas Republicans’ redistricting endeavors.
A race-based challenge to any new congressional map in Texas would gain access to the courthouse, but it could ultimately encounter a skeptical Supreme Court, which has increasingly aimed to eliminate any racial considerations under the Constitution.
The justices are already deliberating a case from Louisiana that involves the conflicting interests of the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act concerning race. Plaintiffs argue that race was improperly utilized to create discriminatory districts under Section 2; opponents contend that mandating the formation of a new map that explicitly considers race constitutes a violation of colorblind equal protection.
When the court hears arguments this fall, there are indications that several justices may seek to strictly limit or entirely abolish Section 2.
Eric Holder participates in Lambda Legal Hosts 2024 National Liberty Awards at The Glasshouse on May 30, 2024, in New York City.Arturo Holmes/Getty Images
Sourse: abcnews.go.com
