Courts Shape the Midterms: Supreme Court Upholds Texas Map as Virginia Justices Weigh Democratic Redistricting Plan

The United States Supreme Court on Monday formally overturned a lower court’s ruling, meaning that the newly redrawn congressional district map in Texas is officially cleared for use indefinitely. The decision guarantees the new lines will be used for the 2026 midterms and beyond, concluding a lengthy legal battle over a map designed to add up to five Republican seats to the U.S. House.Meanwhile, the legal battle over Virginia’s congressional lines moved to that state’s Supreme Court which heard arguments on Monday from both sides on the legality of a Democratic redistricting plan recently approved by voters.The high court’s decision in Texas overturns a lower court’s ruling and ensures the state’s new lines will be used. The lengthy legal battle centered on Texas’ mid-decade redistricting efforts, initiated after President Trump urged GOP-led states to shore up the party’s narrow House majority.Following the passage of the map — which state House Democrats initially delayed by breaking quorum — several civil rights groups sued, alleging racial discrimination. In November, U.S. District Judge Jeff Brown found “substantial evidence” that the map was racially gerrymandered. However, the Supreme Court stayed that ruling, and Monday’s decision permanently clears the map for use. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.Reactions in Texas were polarized. State Sen. Mayes Middleton, a Republican, celebrated the ruling, saying, “The Big Beautiful Map stands! I’m proud to have fought to make this law and now let’s go elect those 5 additional Republican Congressional seats we drew!” Conversely, a Democratic state representative, Gene Wu, argued that the effort had served only to mobilize opposition elsewhere. “As much as this loss stings, [Texas Governor] Greg Abbott should not confuse this ruling for a victory,” he said in a statement. “When we broke quorum last year, Texas House Democrats forced his power grab into the open. Now, California and Virginia have answered and leveled the playing field, and Democrats across the country are still fighting back.”As the legal dust settles in Texas, a high-stakes partisan mirror of that battle is playing out in Virginia. There, Democrats pursued a constitutional amendment to bypass a bipartisan redistricting commission, creating a map that could give the party a 10-1 edge in the state’s congressional delegation, up from a 6-5 split for the Democrats (the referendum passed by a narrow 51 percent). On Monday, the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the legality of the amendment, which voters narrowly approved in a recent special election. Republican challengers argue that Democrats committed procedural errors, notably by using an ongoing special session to pass the amendment and failing to meet the requirement of an intervening election because early voting had already begun.The justices peppered attorneys with tough questions regarding the legislative process. Justice Wesley Russell zeroed in on the use of the special session, asking Democratic attorney Matthew Seligman, “You don’t disagree that the General Assembly didn’t follow the terms of the resolution for expanding the argument is, as a legal matter under Article Four, Section Seven. It’s irrelevant that they didn’t follow that?”Mr. Seligman said, “That is a yes. But to be precise, first of all, there are two points here, one about judicial power, and the second about compliance with legislative rules … This court does not have the power to enforce alleged violations of legislative rules.”Justice Stephen McCullough acknowledged the point but pushed back on the session’s timeline. “I think that’s a compelling argument on how the legislature, by majority vote, sets up its own rules,” the justice said. “The more tricky and, in my mind, unprecedented aspect of that question is the idea of a sort of perpetual special session, when the Constitution envisions a citizen legislature that’s part-time, that meets at prescribed time periods, and we’re writing on a blank canvas on that question.”Justice Russell pressed further on the definition of legislative sessions. “Special Session [by] definition is something that happens outside of the general session,” he said. “If we’ve been in special session and we get around to another general session … why doesn’t the general end the special? What authority do you have for that proposition other than constitutional silence?” After Mr. Seligman argued the silence was telling, Justice Russell said, “Would a special session convened in 1929, if they forgot to adjourn sine die, still be in session?”The justices also heavily scrutinized the timeline of the election itself. “What is your position — your client’s position — regarding a constitutional amendment that is adopted at 6 p.m. on Election Day with an hour left at the polls? Is that the next general, is that still the next general election?” one justice asked. Virginia Solicitor General Tillman Breckenridge countered that overriding the voters based on a timeline technicality would be “patently unfair.”Monday’s Supreme Court arguments follow a Sunday ruling by Richmond Circuit Court Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland, who denied a separate Republican request to block the results of the redistricting referendum.In his ruling, the judge emphasized judicial restraint. “This Court knows its role is clear. It is not to assess the wisdom of public policy nor to engage in policymaking from the bench,” Judge Thorne-Begland wrote. “Instead, it is to decide if those with whom we have entrusted power have exercised that power in conformance with their constitutional mandate. On this question, the Court’s answer is in the affirmative.”While acknowledging that the new districts were “undoubtedly less compact than the ones they replace” and “certainly partisan gerrymanders” that “displace both representatives and voters into new, oddly shaped districts,” the judge ultimately ruled that the map’s compactness was “fairly debatable.” As a result, he concluded that Republicans are “unlikely to succeed on the merits of compactness.”Meanwhile, in yet another development, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida on Monday unveiled a proposed congressional map for his state, a move that could secure four additional Republican seats in the House.Sharing the proposed boundaries with Fox News, the governor showcased a predominantly red map, punctuated by a small number of blue districts located north of Miami and in central Florida.Defending the aggressive redistricting effort, the Republican said: “Florida got shortchanged in the 2020 Census, and we’ve been fighting for fair representation ever since. Our population has since grown dramatically, and we have moved from a Democrat majority to a 1.5 million Republican advantage. Drawing maps based on race, which is reflected in our current congressional districts, is unconstitutional and should be prohibited.”Before the new districts can take effect, the governor’s map must clear the state legislature. Given that the GOP holds a comfortable majority in both the Florida House and Senate, the proposal is well-positioned to advance. If it receives a green light from lawmakers, Mr. DeSantis will sign the measure into law, applying the new boundaries to this year’s midterms.Currently, Florida is represented by 20 Republicans and seven Democrats in the House. The governor said on Fox that the newly drawn map “more fairly represents the makeup of Florida today.”

Courts Shape the Midterms: Supreme Court Upholds Texas Map as Virginia Justices Weigh Democratic Redistricting Plan

More from the New York Sun

Florida To Consider Banning Illegal Immigrants From Attending Public Colleges

‘Democrats Should Take This Seriously’: Reality TV Star Spencer Pratt Goes Viral With Campaign Ad Targeting L.A.’s Political Class

Ingenious Proposal Emerges for Reforming the Senate Filibuster, Which Promotes Paralysis at Washington

More from the New York Sun

Florida To Consider Banning Illegal Immigrants From Attending Public Colleges

‘Democrats Should Take This Seriously’: Reality TV Star Spencer Pratt Goes Viral With Campaign Ad Targeting L.A.’s Political Class

Ingenious Proposal Emerges for Reforming the Senate Filibuster, Which Promotes Paralysis at Washington

Today’s High-Tech ‘Big Brother’ Hard To Square With Constitution

‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ is Moderately Sharp and Stylish, but Dresses Down Compared With the Original Model

‘Reunion’: A Coming-of-Age Second World War Film Belatedly Comes of Age

Supreme Court Appears Divided On Allowing Trump To End Protections For Haitian and Syrian Migrants

Time To Say Goodbye, Jay Powell