SCOTUS Gifts GOP a Fighting Chance to Hold the House

A lot has happened. Here are some of the things. This is the TPM Morning Memo.

A whole new battlefield

The Roberts Court’s decision to effectively neutralize the Voting Rights Act gives new life to Republicans in their attempt to maintain their fragile parliamentary majority in 2026.

Let’s consider some of the developments in the 24 hours since the decision to Louisiana v. Callais was transmitted:

• Louisiana: Gov. Jeff Landry (R) plans to suspend next month’s primary elections so state lawmakers can pass a new congressional map that eliminates one or both of the state’s majority-black districts.
• Florida: The GOP-controlled Legislature passed its already-planned new congressional district map that could net Republicans four House seats.
• Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee and South Carolina: Leading GOP candidates, elected officials and party chairs “have called for special legislative sessions to dismantle majority-minority districts and create more aggressive gerrymanders to benefit their party,” Politico reports.

The result is already that Republicans have regained the lead in the mid-decade redistricting battle, regaining it just days after Democrats took the lead.

The Republican Party’s advantage is small, but the already narrow division in the House makes any change in the national map potentially decisive one way or the other. Even if only a handful of Southern states take up the Supreme Court’s decision, the gains could be enough to tip the scales further in favor of the Republican Party, all else being equal. (Conversely, it is also true that these marginal changes may become meaningless if Democrats win in November in a wave election that reverses all of the Republican Party’s structural gains.)

Much of yesterday’s analysis pointedly highlighted how tight election schedules in many states may prevent the Republican Party from taking full advantage of an electoral map free from the constraints of the Voting Rights Act. But it’s also true that it’s generally easier to redistrict in red states than in blue states. With the Republican Party’s firm control over many states, its top-down hierarchical structure, and its culture of rewarding impunity, it is not only better positioned to take advantage of the present moment, it also has little to lose.

Against this backdrop is one Donald J. Trump, whose entire political existence, financial fortunes, and fractured psychology depend on his remaining in the House. Why wouldn’t Republicans do everything in their power to push the envelope as far as they can between now and November? That’s how they got to this point. That’s what they do. Why would they stop now?

2028 and beyond

A few additional points regarding the impact on the ground of the Roberts Court’s decision:

GOP structural advantage grows

Even if the timetable is too tight for Republicans to maximize the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in time for the 2026 elections, the impact on the 2028 congressional district map will be enormous. A political playing field that already tilts structurally in favor of Republicans (thanks to the Senate, the Electoral College, and partisan gerrymandering) will result in a considerably steeper climb for Democrats.

“We are very likely going to see the largest decline in minority representation in the modern era — perhaps even greater than the decline we saw at the end of Reconstruction,” Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor, told WaPo.

(Yes, Republicans risk diluting their districts by eliminating majority-minority districts, but this is a manageable risk that is frankly often overestimated. In the long run, this might result in median candidates in red districts being slightly less right-leaning, but in most cases the overall electoral advantage still goes to the Republican Party.)

It’s not just the house

The impact of the Roberts Court decision is also considerable on national and local maps: legislatures, city councils, judicial districts, etc. Election law expert Richard Hasen calls this the “whitewashing” of American politics, a whitewashing of elected officials at all levels of government.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) had already called a special legislative session to review the state’s judicial maps, and now the state will get one of the first bites next month at the apple offered by the conservative six-justice majority on the Supreme Court.

With local elected offices serving as entry points to higher office, eliminating minority representation stifles political careers before they can even begin, creating an additional structural barrier for potential candidates of color at all levels of government.

Quote of the day

“If you tell me I have to be white to serve in Congress from Louisiana, there’s nothing I can do about it.”Rep. Cleo Fields (D-LA), reacting to the Roberts Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act

A sample of the legal scope

• Law professor Richard Hasen: “Wednesday’s 6-3 decision Louisiana v. Callais will go down in history as one of the most pernicious and damaging Supreme Court decisions of the last century.
• Kate Riga of TPM: “Conservative judges know that Callais makes Section 2 cases virtually impossible to bring, and this will have the same effect as their previous deteriorations of the VRA. They know that they are making minority voters vulnerable to redistricting or a restriction of their voting power – and they also know that most of those minority voters vote Democratic.
• Civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill: “[I]It is a mistake to view today’s decision as simply a blow to the political rights of racial minorities. Today’s decision is a major blow to the fragile infrastructure of our democracy. It sets aside the valuable and noble actions undertaken by countless generations of activists, lawyers, and legislators, who have worked to move this country closer to the path of true multiracial democracy. He is ignoring the will of Congress. In its place, the Court leaves a zero-sum game of partisan politics and opens the door to the return of total racial exclusion in political representation. As long as it’s disguised as partisan gerrymandering or protecting the incumbent, it’s all good.”

Topic of the day