The Democrats’ aggressive response to the redistricting war with the GOP has helped the party stave off dramatic losses of congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, as they seek to retake control of at least one branch in Congress.
Yet the successful counterattacks against the GOP could be wiped out next year if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting, in the case of Louisiana v. Callais.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) successfully lobbied Californians to pass Proposition 50, which will help Democrats net up to five favorable seats to counter the mid-decade map Texas Republicans enacted, which netted five favorable seats for the GOP.
Democrats gained another seat in Utah on Monday after a district judge approved a new congressional map that includes a solidly blue district in Salt Lake City. Lawmakers in Virginia are attempting to muscle in a new map that could net Democrats two or three more seats after passing a constitutional amendment that still needs voter approval.
Separately, Kansas House Speaker Dan Hawkins declined to call a special session to move forward on a new map, and Ohio’s bipartisan redistricting commission gave its approval on a map that gives the GOP an edge but doesn’t completely decimate Democratic districts.
But all that could be for naught. The Supreme Court case is being argued over whether Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendment.
Some advocacy groups have claimed that if Section 2 is struck down, it would result in the creation of at least 19 new safe GOP House seats, on top of an additional eight seats from Republican redistricting efforts. Other experts claim black representation will decrease.
If the Supreme Court strikes down Section 2, “African American seats in the Deep South could be lost in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida,” said Shawn Donahue, a professor of political science at the University of Buffalo who focuses on redistricting.
Rep. Sanford Bishop’s (D-GA) district in Southwest Georgia “is in trouble,” according to Donohue, as are Reps. Jim Clyburn’s (D-SC), Benny Thompson’s (D-MS), Steve Cohen’s (D-TN), and possibly Shomari Figures’s (D-AL) and Rep. Terri Sewell’s (D-AL) seats. Many of the majority black seats in the Deep South send black Democratic representatives to Congress because “they are racially polarized,” Donahue added.
Democrats and aligned groups have slammed any attempt to weaken the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 during the Civil Rights Movement, as an undemocratic attack to benefit President Donald Trump.
“Republicans are already targeting the voting power of communities of color in their craven redistricting schemes, and if the Supreme Court sides with Donald Trump, it would be a major, generational step back in our fight for racial justice and fair representation,” Democratic National Committee chairman Ken Martin told the Washington Examiner in a statement. “This is an all-hands-on-deck moment to sound the alarm – the Republican goal is nothing short of silencing voters of color. Make no mistake: no matter how the Court rules, we intend to take back the majority in 2026.”
Marc H. Morial, president and CEO of the civil rights group the National Urban League, blasted the high court’s 6-3 conservative-leaning majority as beholden to Trump.
“It is troubling, it’s disappointing, and it is absolutely tragic that the Supreme Court would even entertain striking down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court does not have clean hands when it comes to the mess and the confusion of our democracy today,” Morial said.
The Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision struck down the preclearance requirement for states with a history of voting discrimination in the Voting Rights Act, which Morial claimed paved the way for this moment in the redistricting battles.
“They opened the floodgates for suppression. They opened the floodgates for gerrymandering. They opened the floodgates for states to engage in, if you will, ill-advised and sinister methods and means to really gain unfair advantages in elections,” he added. “So I’m hopeful that the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, will sustain Section Two of the Voting Rights Act.”
Dave Wasserman, the senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report, told the Washington Examiner that estimates of 15-19 seats becoming gerrymandered were meant to “sound an alarm.”
“I don’t agree that 15 to 19 is the number of seats that would be eliminated if Section Two is struck down,” Wasserman said. “I think it’s probably closer to a dozen. But that’s also a question more for 2028 than it is for 2026.”
A ruling in late June from the Supreme Court may be too late for some states to implement new maps before the midterms.
“I think potentially, the only state that would redraw before 26 would be Louisiana, where one or two Democratic seats could be at risk,” said Wasserman.
Morial claimed he was not in support of a tit-for-tat redistricting war between Democrats and the GOP but said that it could be necessary given the high court’s alliance with Trump.
His comments were somewhat echoed by Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), a lawmaker who could lose his seat under California’s new map, who criticized House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) for supporting Trump’s effort to gerrymander before the midterm elections.
“I warned the Speaker for months that a redistricting war was (1) bad for the country, (2) unpopular with Members on both sides, and (3) likely to end as a wash. Yet he cheered it on rather than try to stop it,” he wrote on X.
Ohio-based Republican strategist Matt Dole claimed he wasn’t surprised by Kiley’s comments.
“What’s happening in California is brutal and it is not good and disallows Democrats to sort of claim the moral high ground on redistricting, which is what they usually attempt to do,” he said. But “I think it’s a fight worth having redistricting and the way we redistrict.”
Dole also claimed that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was no longer necessary, stating that the original intent of the law was to allow African Americans to register to vote and then actually be able to vote without intimidation.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was barely used for redistricting in the first 17 years of the law. But when the legislation was extended in 1982 for 25 years, it included a “results” test provision that prohibited voting laws that were discriminatory against racial minorities, regardless of intent. The provision allowed voters to challenge electoral maps that diluted the power of minority voters.
“We’re just very far afield of that. And certainly, the original Voting Rights Act says nothing about the right of representation. It only speaks to the right of voting,” Dole said. “People say the 1965 Voting Rights Act is in jeopardy. That’s just not the case at all. And I understand the political messaging there. I understand why they’re doing it from a political standpoint, but I think the court is right to go and say, ‘OK, we’ve been at this for 60 years now. Where do we stand as a country now?’”
Critics of the Voting Rights Act point to the growing number of black lawmakers who represent non-majority-minority districts as to why Section 2 should be struck down. In early 2023, 30 out of 60 black lawmakers, most of whom are Democrats, represented non-majority minority districts or states — a notable contrast from decades prior.
Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan told the high court justices that “there are only 15 majority-Black districts” nationwide during arguments for the Louisiana v. Callais case.
“It’s not going to basically eliminate all black members of Congress,” said Erik Nisbet, a professor at Northwestern University. “But it is going to, over time, eliminate the likelihood of them being elected overall, I think in the aggregate.”
But the loss of black members of Congress highlights the tension Democrats face between preserving majority-minority seats and eking out more favorable districts.
“One reason there’s been resistance to redistricting in Illinois is because some black lawmakers are worried this would dilute black majority districts,” Nisbet said. “And this is where I think the redistricting battle, and some of the Democrats’ response, is unfortunate, because what you’re going to see is this tit for tat, it’s basically normalized redistricting for political gain on both sides.”
If Section 2 is hollowed out, the public “will be less upset about it because it’s already been normalized,” Nisbet said, citing the redistricting wars.
But there are some caveats for Democrats if Section 2 is thrown out.
“Democrats could be free to unpack districts in states they control to spread voters in heavy Democratic districts to other districts,” also known as cracking gerrymandering, Donohue said.
Additionally, Latino voters who voted in favor of the GOP and Trump during the 2024 election could back Democrats in states like Texas if anxiety over the economy continues to dominate voters.
“From my research, and from my view, when I’m looking at exit polls, Latino voters are very interesting voters right now, and I think they’re voting very much economically,” said Nisbet. “And a lot of the Latino male vote was economic-based … Latino voters come from a lot of different backgrounds. I think the key thing is that what they were voting on was their pocketbook last week, like a lot of Americans.”
SUPREME COURT POISED TO SHAKE UP MIDTERM ELECTIONS
Ultimately, what a ruling in late June will be is uncertain.
“We don’t know what’s going to happen,” Donohue said. But “What happens in Baton Rouge won’t stay in Baton Rouge, potentially.”
In the best-case scenario for Republicans on redistricting efforts alone, not factoring in the Supreme Court case, the GOP could net an additional eight seats, according to the Cook Political Report. In a best-case scenario for Democrats, their counter efforts would ultimately see a net gain of one. As things stand, Wasserman explained that the CPR rates 188 seats as safe for Republicans, with an addition 16 seats likely Republican, while there are 180 seats that are safe Democrat, and an addition 18 likely Democrat.
“We’re looking at a battlefield of maybe 30 or so competitive races,” he said.