Texas Receives a Free Pass for Gerrymandering. Will California Receive the Same Treatment?

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Texas is not required to revise its heavily gerrymandered districts, concluding that the map is not unlawfully based on race and that the upcoming election, only 11 months away, makes a redraw impractical.

The decision, issued by an unsigned majority along with a concurrence from Justice Samuel Alito joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, aligns with the Courts recent trend of weakening anti-gerrymandering measures. Since the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause ruling, which barred federal courts from hearing partisan gerrymandering claims, proving the existence of racial gerrymanders has become more difficult, as race and party affiliation are often intertwined. Notably, the Texas district courts nearly 200-page ruling found substantial evidence that the states new maps were influenced by race.

Additionally, conservative justices have increasingly invoked the Purcell principle, preventing changes to election procedures close to elections, which has often benefited Republican-favored maps.

Attention now turns to whether the Court will apply the same leniency to California, a state that has reacted to Republican gerrymandering with its own maps. The brief ruling references California twice: the unsigned majority noted that Texas adopted the first new map, then California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done, and Alitos concurrence observed that Californias map, like Texas, was clearly adopted for partisan advantage.

These statements suggest that the Court views the actions of Texas and California as equivalent: if Texass partisan motivations are legal, then Californias are too. This raises concerns as states continue to redraw districts in ways that may limit voter influence over congressional representation. It is likely that California Republicans, with support from the Justice Department, will seek a distinction based on race to challenge the states approach.

The Supreme Courts record indicates a persistent bias against voter-centered redistricting reforms, leaving only the question of whether this stance will be consistently applied.

Author: Ava Mitchell