SSilver / Depositphotos.com
CONLEY COMMENTARY (WSAU) – The redistricting fight over the 2026 mid-term elections is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Recall, Texas redistricted its congressional maps. The GOP stood to pick-up 5 or 6 additional seats in the next congress. California countered with its own redistricting, which could wipe out the “Texas effect”.
There is a big difference between the two states. In Texas, the legislature draws the voting boundaries. In California, which wanted to pose as beyond gerrymandering, a non-partisan commission draws the maps. And that could be a problem.
The last time they went to the polls, Californians voted on two propositions. First to undo a constitutional amendment to do away with the commissions. Then residents simultaneously voted on a new package of maps favoring Democrats. Of course, in uber-liberal California, both measures passed.
But there are still some politically active Republicans in California. They’re appealing to the Supreme Court. Their argument, voters can’t change the constitution and pass new maps simultaneously. They says the legislature-which drew the new maps-had no authority to do so. Until the voters weighed in, only the commissions of retired judges had the power.
It is an interesting… and perhaps a winning argument. It remains to be seen if the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case. The Supremes have already okay’ed the Texas maps; different state, different rules.
There’s something else that works in favor of the republican’s case in California. It’s late in the process to have uncertainty over political voting boundaries. Candidates have already declared their intentions to run. Fundraising is well underway. Courts have held before that candidates and donors should know well in advance who is running and where. The court could rely on its own precedent that the old California districts are established and known, and that certainty is better than uncertainty in the run-up before an election.
It would be ironic if California, while trying to posture against partisan gerrymandering, loses the case because they can’t undo what they’ve already done.
Chris Conley
Comments