Supreme Court | A ruling could give the House to the Republicans

At the request of Donald Trump, Republicans are changing the electoral map, but so far it does not appear to be enough to prevent Democrats from gaining a majority in the House of Representatives.

Everything could change if the Supreme Court invalidates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the case Louisiana v. Callaisexamined Wednesday by the Court.

Republicans could eliminate fewer Democratic districts than they theoretically can—we’ll see why below—but the intensity of recent redistricting suggests they would eliminate enough to gain a structural advantage. It’s unclear whether that would happen by the 2026 midterm elections — the Court is expected to decide next summer — but the new seats would allow Republicans, eventually, to win the House even while losing the popular vote by a wide margin.

With these new seats added to those that already appear to lean Republican, the House would not be in play in most election years.

Despite all the redistricting carried out by the two parties over the past decade, neither has succeeded in gaining a structural advantage in the House. In two very close elections, the party that won the most votes got the most seats.

This is because the redistricting of each camp has neutralized each other. The two big obstacles to these redistrictings are state laws on this issue and Section 2. State laws restricting these manipulations have mostly been enacted by Democrats in blue and purple states. But in many red states, particularly in the South, Section 2 is the main barrier to redistricting.

“Minority-majority” constituencies

The section prohibits discriminatory voting practices based on race, which has been interpreted as requiring the creation of what are known in American election parlance as “majority-minority districts,” where minority groups make up at least 50 percent of the population and voting is racially polarized. Without Section 2, many state conventions could eliminate majority-minority congressional districts, which typically vote Democratic.

It is difficult to quantify precisely how many of these districts Republicans could eliminate if Section 2 were repealed. And it is unclear whether Republicans would manage to remove them before the 2026 midterm elections: the Supreme Court’s decision is expected to come after several state primaries. The full effect of this judgment may not be felt until 2028, or even after the 2030 census.

But even with a low estimate, Republicans would likely eliminate a half-dozen majority-minority districts in red states in the Deep South.

In these states, Republicans could eliminate all of these districts – held by Democrats – while ensuring that the new districts remain relatively compact and largely Republican.

With Mr. Trump openly calling for Republicans to aggressively redistrict in time for 2026, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana and Tennessee could attempt to eliminate all Democratic districts. Additionally, without Section 2, North Carolina’s current plan for a majority-black Democratic district would be in compliance with the law. And a Democratic district in Florida would become tempting for ruling Republicans.

Beyond these seven or eight seats, things are more vague. On paper, the Republicans could force the game and eliminate a half-dozen more seats in Texas, Georgia, Missouri and Florida. Mr. Trump encourages them to do so, but other factors would begin to weigh.

Redistricting too much involves risks

Thus, Republicans cannot eliminate all majority-minority districts without jeopardizing incumbent Republican candidates. This is especially true in states like Georgia or Texas, where Republicans must preserve a certain number of Democratic districts in order to ensure that each Republican incumbent runs in a safe district. This is also the case in Florida, where Republicans must also plausibly respect the amendment “Fair Districts” (fair districts) of the state, which is not strictly enforced.

The other limiting factor is the cooperation of Republican elected officials in Congress or the states. There may be an electoral price to pay for eliminating Democratic seats: Republicans may not support more aggressive redistricting, even if it is mathematically possible.

Thus, maximum redistricting in Texas would involve the almost complete reconfiguration of the electoral map, with extravagantly shaped districts stretching from the centers of large cities to the borders of neighboring states. Incumbent Republicans may fear losing longtime voters and donors if they run overnight in these new districts, even in primaries. State elected officials could decide that they do not want to risk imposing an electoral map that would offend voters.

However, these voters have seen others: after all, the Republicans have carried out numerous redistrictings in recent years. But these redistrictings have shown that there are limits. This year, Republican voters strongly opposed those tempted by their party in Missouri and Indiana. In Georgia in particular, Republican elected officials won by small margins and are vulnerable to any Republican defection.

Even successful Republican redistricting appears to have reached the tolerable limit of gerrymandering. A Democratic seat in Austin, Texas, is a clear example. Even with Section 2, Republicans could remove it tomorrow morning because it is majority white. But they don’t seem very inclined to do so.

Seven to eight seats would be enough

Either way, Republicans wouldn’t need to eliminate many districts to deal a major blow to Democrats’ chances. Even in the seven or eight seat scenario, Democrats might have to win the popular vote by 5 percentage points to have just a 50/50 chance of winning the House of Representatives.

In recent decades, 5-point popular vote victories in the House of Representatives have typically occurred in wave elections, such as in 1994, 2006, 2010 and 2018, in which one party won by a large majority. And this has only happened once in the last 30 years in a presidential election year: Barack Obama’s victory in 2008.

However, if Section 2 is repealed and Republicans redistrict in the South, Democrats will find themselves at such a structural disadvantage that even with a 5-point victory, their chances could depend on upsets in a few heavily Republican districts.

This article was published in the New York Times.

Read the original version (in English; subscription required)