Federal Panel of Judges Rules That Republicans Aren't Allowed to Gerrymander in Republican States

...because when you gerrymander to reduce Democrat seats, you're usually also reducing sets dominated by black or Hispanic voters, and these judges say you can never, ever reduce the "impact" blacks or Hispanics can have on elections.

You can, of course, always reduce the impact of white voters, as California just did.

In fact, it's legally required.

A three-judge federal panel ruled that the redrawn Texas congressional redistricting map was "racial gerrymandering" and ordered the state to use 2021 maps for the midterm elections.

Since it's a federal voting rights case, the only appeal is to the Supreme Court. It's unclear whether the high court will have time to rule before the 2026 primary filing deadline next month.

"Any claim that these maps are discriminatory is absurd and unsupported by the testimony offered during ten days of hearings," Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, said in a statement. "This ruling is clearly erroneous and undermines the authority the U.S. Constitution assigns to the Texas Legislature by imposing a different map by judicial edict."

Texas state law allows for partisan gerrymandering. Republicans claimed that the map was being redrawn to give them a partisan advantage and to "better reflect Texans' conservative voting preferences -- and for no other reason," said the governor. The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the courts could not intervene if a map was drawn to give one side a partisan advantage.

"The public perception of this case is that it's about politics," U.S. Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote in the ruling. "To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map."

Indeed, it's a lot easier to prove "racial gerrymandering" based on the number of voters of color in a new district compared to the last one. It doesn't matter if many of those black and Hispanic voters would vote Republican. The Voting Rights Act only recognized the color of the voter's skin.

GOP-aligned people filed a lawsuit against the California gerrymander that Gavin Newsom just put into action. They allege that gerrymander is also a racial gerrymander, packing Republican-leaning -- and largely white -- voters into as few districts as possible.

How much do you want to bet that that lawsuit gets laughed out of court, resulting in the de facto rule that Democrats are allowed to gerrymander but Republicans aren't?

...

California Gov. Gavin Newsom was openly gloating about the decision. He had just rammed through his own Democratic redistricting map that would reduce the nine Republicans currently serving in the 52-member California congressional delegation to four.

"Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned -- and democracy won," Newsom said in a statement Tuesday. "This ruling is a win for Texas and for every American who fights for free and fair elections."

We'll see if the Supreme Court accepts cert on an expedited basis. They're already weighing whether or not the leftist-schemer-fabricated, left-wing-judge imposed doctrine of "disparate impact" -- which claims that you can never adopt any law at all which might have a "disparate impact" on black voters, no matter legislative intent -- can still stand.

In the congressional gerrymandering fight between Republicans and Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm election, a number of states are keeping watch for a potential game changer from the U.S. Supreme Court.

During the rare rehearing of a Louisiana redistricting case in October, the court's conservative majority appeared inclined to weaken the Voting Rights Act's Section 2 protections against racial discrimination in the political mapmaking process.

Such a ruling could spark a new wave of congressional redistricting, especially in the South, where voting is often racially polarized and Section 2 has long prevented the dilution of Black minority voters' collective power. Without the current Section 2 protections, Republican-led southern states may undo districts where Black voters have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidates, who are usually Democrats.

This redrawing could give the GOP a sizable boost, as the party seeks to keep control of the House of Representatives.

When the Supreme Court would release its decision is crucial. Time is running out to redo maps, which have to be finalized ahead of a state's filing deadline for candidates seeking to run in a primary election for the midterms.

"The earlier the decision comes, the more likely the decision is before the date for candidates to declare that they're going to be running, and the more time there is for legislatures to meet and consider maps and redraw their maps," says Nick Stephanopoulos, a professor specializing in election law at Harvard Law School.

The next batch of filing deadlines arrives in December. Still, Stephanopoulos notes these cut-off dates are "just products of state law."

"If a state legislature that's hellbent on gerrymandering wants to do so, it wouldn't be especially surprising if that same legislature delayed the filing deadline, potentially even change the date of the primary election, in order to give themselves enough time to gerrymander," Stephanopoulos says.

As I've already said, I think Roberts is too cowardly to vote this pernicious discriminatory rule down, and Amy Coney Barrett is a liberal-leaning flake who wants her fellow liberals to accept her back into the club.

As if we needed more bad news for 2026-- Indiana RINO liberal Republican state legislators are refusing to redistrict that "red" state. A gerrymander could change the partisan balance of the state delegation from 7 to 2 to 9-0 in favor of Republicans, but "Republicans" are refusing.

President Donald Trump is unleashing his anger at Indiana Senate Republicans for not backing the GOP redistricting effort, posting his displeasure three times to Truth Social in the last 24 hours and calling President Pro Tempore Rod Bray a "Total RINO."

"In the entire United States of America, Republican or Democrat, only Indiana "Republican" State Senator Rod Bray, a Complete and Total RINO, is opposed to redistricting for purposes of gaining additional Seats in Congress," posted Trump on Monday afternoon, who has seen Republican lawmakers in four states now reject his mid-cycle redistricting scheme. In another Monday post, Trump said competitors were lining up to primary Bray.

Bray is not the only Republican in Indiana who doesn't back redistricting. On Monday, Indiana state Sen. Blake Doriot of Goshen issued a statement saying that he was a Trump supporter but that he opposed redistricting.

"I have long been a Trump supporter, and I want President Trump to continue to be successful with a Republican-led House so he can continue fixing our woke colleges, fighting illegal immigration and crime, and encouraging us to speak about our great nation and be proud of who we are as Americans -- not apologize for it," Doriot said in a statement.

The news comes as Trump is set to issue a retributive endorsement as early as Monday against one of a handful Indiana Senate Republicans who opposes the White House's mid-cycle redistricting plan.

Among the holdouts targeted by the White House: Republican state Sen. Jim Buck of Kokomo, who is facing a primary from Tipton County Commissioner Tracey Powell. Trump could back Powell Monday, according to a person familiar with his thinking speaking exclusively with POLITICO, following through on MAGA's and White House allies' long-running threats to primary opponents of their mid-decade redistricting effort intended to protect their slim House majority in the midterms next year.

Welcome to Wednesday. So far, it's not great.

posted by Ace at 12:13 PM

| Access Comments