Supreme Court supercharges the death of competitive districts
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Shoshana Gordon/Axios
The 2026 midterms are expected to have fewer competitive House districts than past elections, and the Supreme Court just blessed a redistricting war that will only squeeze races further.
Why it matters: That means more often the real race happens in primaries, which cater to a party's most devout members and not the electorate at large.
- "It means that elections are just no longer really a barometer of how how the public feels about politics," says Robert Boatright, a political science professor at Clark University who studies primaries.
What they're saying: Nick Troiano, the executive director of election reform group Unite America, tells Axios that the midterm elections "will be the least competitive elections of our lifetime."
- Troiano explains, "Both parties are fighting fire with fire when it comes to gerrymandering — and the natural outcome is that the whole place burns down."
Catch up quick: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that partisan gerrymandering can protect voting maps drawn to limit minority representation from legal challenges.
- Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the Voting Rights Act "does not intrude on States' prerogative to draw districts based on nonracial factors, including to achieve partisan advantage."
By the numbers: Just 16 of the 435 House races are currently labeled a "Toss Up" by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, while 14 lean toward Democrats and 2 toward Republicans.
- In its final 2024 election rating, Cook labeled 22 seats as a toss-up, while 13 leaned Democratic and 8 leaned Republican. In 2022, there were 36 toss-ups, and 28 leaners.
- Unite America puts it this way: months out from the midterms, upward of 400 House seats are essentially "already decided."
Between the lines: Even if the mid-year redistricting blitz ends up a wash, the result is still fewer November nail-biters, says Dave Wasserman, Cook's senior editor and a prominent elections analyst.
- Even with a partisan wave, Wasserman says, one party picking up 20 seats today is the equivalent to what snagging 40 or 50 used to be.
When the general election is less of a toss-up, that means gloves come off in the primary.
- Wasserman says that puts more "pragmatic incumbents" in difficult positions, meaning they have to "sell themselves to voters and primary audiences in ways that might not be comfortable."
Follow the money: Packed primaries in solid seats open the door to well-funded interest groups getting involved.
- "It often means that in a safe seat, voters are going to wind up with candidate ... from their party, but they're not necessarily a candidate with broad support in the district, and they may be a candidate who is beholden to some special interest," Boatright says.
Zoom in: Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center's Washington, D.C., office, says the lack of competition can drive down voter turnout, with competitive elections generally carrying higher rates of voter participation.
- Groups like Unite America want to reimagine the primary, calling for reforms similar to the all-candidate systems in Washington, California or Alaska.
- 17 states still have closed or partially closed primaries, per the National Conference of State Legislatures.
- Crayton tells Axios dwindling competition "makes people less willing to feel accountable when they're elected, and it ultimately ... creates greater distance and a mismatch between the people who are elected and the electorate."
Go deeper: "I wish none of this had happened": GOP's buyer's remorse on redistricting
