Supreme Court allows GOP-backed Texas congressional map
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Texas Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (D-Austin) asked questions about a then-proposed congressional map in August. Photo: Sara Diggins/The Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Texas to use its new congressional map favoring Republicans for now, effectively cementing the map for the midterm elections.
Why it matters: The ruling is a major win for Republicans, whose majority in the U.S. House could hinge on whether Texas keeps or loses the extra five GOP-leaning seats state lawmakers drew this year.
Catch up quick: Texas state lawmakers this summer conducted an unusual mid-decade redistricting process intended to net the GOP the extra seats, at the request of President Trump.
- A coalition of voting rights groups challenged the map, alleging the state racially gerrymandered to weaken minority representation.
- A panel of three federal judges at first blocked the map, saying lawmakers drew it based on race rather than politics alone.
- Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito then temporarily reinstated it.
The latest: Thursday's ruling from the full Supreme Court maintains Alito's order. The new GOP-favored map will take effect while the court reviews the case, which is unlikely to happen in time for next year's elections.
What they're saying: Alito wrote Thursday that it's "indisputable" that Texas passed a new map "for partisan advantage pure and simple."
- Plus, "Because of the correlation between race and partisan preference, litigants can easily use claims of racial gerrymandering for partisan ends," he added.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott applauded the decision in a statement on Thursday.
- "The new congressional districts better align our representation in Washington D.C. with the values of our state," he wrote. "This is a victory for Texas voters, for common sense, and for the U.S. Constitution."
The other side: "Today's order disrespects the work of a District Court that did everything one could ask to carry out its charge," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent to Thursday's ruling.
- It "disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race."
Context: The court cited the Purcell principle, which holds that federal courts should try to avoid changes close to an election. Alito, in his concurrence, said the panel of judges in the district court violated that rule.
- "The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion," he wrote.
The big picture: Texas' mid-decade redistricting spurred a partisan competition with other states.
- California voters in November passed a measure that could lead to five new Democratic U.S. House seats there. The Trump administration sued to stop it from taking effect.
Texas Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston), who led Democratic state lawmakers in stalling the map this summer, said the party will keep fighting nationwide.
- "The Governor and the White House thought they could deliver Republicans a permanent majority by silencing Black and Brown voters. They will fail."
What's next: Monday is the deadline in Texas to file for candidacy in the U.S. House.
- Primary election day in Texas is March 3.
The bottom line: The high court will review a full appeal of the lower court's decision, but in the order pausing the ruling, it already indicated Texas was "likely to succeed on the merits."
Editor's note: This is a developing story and has been updated throughout.