California and Texas Redistricting Battle - Judicial History
By: Imani Castillo Yee
On February 4, 2026, the Supreme Court denied an appeal by the California Republican Party. Tangipa v. Newsom was a case challenging the state’s new Congressional map said to constitute a racial gerrymander. This map had been redrawn by California’s legislature after Proposition 50 passed in November 2025. This ballot measure temporarily shifted responsibility of creating the legislative map from the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to the state lawmakers. Governor Gavin Newsom framed the new map as a direct response by Democrats to Texas’ redistricting attempts to give the GOP a leg up in the 2026 midterm elections.
These recent events illustrate a broader policy issue of states using gerrymandering without any consequence or intervention by federal courts. Redistricting has increasingly been used as an instrument to disadvantage social minorities, making it a problem of disenfranchisement rather than straightforward election policy.
The legal foundation for these gerrymandering measures relies on a series of landmark cases. In a 2004 case, Justice Kennedy described two terms to define the types of gerrymandering that can be utilized. One is packing, or grouping all members of a certain demographic or party together to lessen the impact of their votes. The second is cracking, or dispersing members of a party or group to create very small, giving undue representation to those who would otherwise be an outright minority.
In Gil v. Whitford (2019), the court rejected the plaintiffs’ standing because they did not prove specific, individual injuries that arose from systemic gerrymandering. However, the oral arguments revealed key opinions that indicated where the court was going to rule next. Justice Kagan argued it would be clear to track how states built their maps and determine whether there was asymmetry in terms of representation. This development of precedent would hypothetically give the court a better sense of what were considered outliers. Chief Justice Roberts, however, pragmatically warned that there would be too many plaintiffs with standing that would contest their states’ gerrymanders, opening up a can of worms to challenge district maps nationwide.
Justice Roberts’ opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause resolved this issue on partisan gerrymandering. In 2019, the court’s 5-4 decision effectively approved gerrymandering for political means or to gain partisan advantage, stating that it was a nonjusticiable area. They argued that involvement in political matters was beyond the court’s scope as an independent, non-elected body. The majority opinion stated that ruling on the legality of the gerrymander in North Carolina would open up a plethora of cases for the court to deal with. As a result, federal courts had no authority over challenges to partisan gerrymandering.
Justice Kagan’s seething dissent in Rucho is one of the most important in the judicial record, as she outlines many possible standards that could be used to measure gerrymanders. Additionally, she points out that there was record of the legislative bodies responsible for making the North Carolina electorate maps running simulations of elections to base their proposals on the results. It also highlights that state courts should not have jurisdiction over gerrymanders if the Supreme Court decides it cannot rule on these cases. This goes against the principle of the federal court being the highest authority.
Recent developments of the court’s approval of both Texas and California’s redistricted maps were direct outcomes of President Trump’s demands directed at state legislators to reshape electoral maps and give the GOP an advantage in the House of Representatives in 2026. The election season in 2025 saw the passage of several provisions and creation of new maps to redraw party lines.
The court ruled in Abbot v. LULAC (2025) that these drawings were entirely for partisan reasons. However, critics argue that the map targets Black and Latino districts, reducing the impact of their votes. Both maps are predicted to add an additional five seats for Republicans in Texas, and five seats for Democrats in California. If election season proceeds as predicted with the majority parties winning each seat, the status quo will effectively be maintained.
The future of gerrymandering and enfranchisement as a whole is also under attack by the Supreme Court, as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has come into question in Louisiana v. Callais. As we await the rulings on this matter, it is important to consider how minority groups would be undermined without the guarantee of protection of their rights as political participants. The system now relies on a race-to-the-bottom dynamic, encouraged by the party in power in the federal government. Another possibility is that state-level solutions will be proposed, such as a shift towards independent redistricting commissions like California has.
The impacts of partisan gerrymandering will be visible as the 2026 midterm elections progress, demonstrating how voting policy can trickle down from the federal level to districts and individuals.
Sources
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/the-gerrymandering-mess/
