The GOP Calls on the Supreme Court to Correct Their Own Misstep

Texas Republicans are attempting to protect their gerrymander from constitutional scrutiny.

Recently, a court in Texas invalidated a Republican gerrymander designed to secure five additional GOP seats in the House due to mishandling by Trump’s Justice Department.

Under Trump's influence, Texas Republicans revised the state's electoral boundaries, which in turn provoked Democratic efforts to redraw districts in blue states. Californians approved a measure to adjust their maps in favor of Democrats, and Virginia is likely to follow suit as Democrats gain full control.

Understanding the Supreme Court Situation

These overt manipulations to sway electoral results are largely allowed due to the Supreme Court's ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, which prevents federal courts from halting partisan gerrymandering.

Even though the Republican-dominated Supreme Court is generally permissive of biased maps, they typically oppose gerrymandering based on race. Justice Samuel Alito has noted that maps where race is a key factor face intense constitutional scrutiny.

Complications arose when Trump's Justice Department falsely claimed it was illegal to have a district where white residents are a minority and insisted Texas redraw certain districts. Thus, the Department influenced Texas to alter the maps racially, resulting in legal challenges.

Based on this evidence, a court invalidated the Texas maps, leading to the Supreme Court consideration where, due to the GOP's majority in the Court, Texas might triumph.

Critical Arguments in Court

This case emerges amid the Court's 'shadow docket', where decisions can be made without extensive argument or a written explanation. Texas's main arguments are: one, they adjusted maps for political leanings, not racial; two, a radical claim that could exempt state election laws from constitutional review.

Evaluating the Seriousness of Texas’s Case

Texas’s extreme stance could allow states to manipulate electionsand avoid judicial scrutiny by pointing out political, not racial motivations. The risk remains that the current Supreme Court may accept this view to prevent a decision with broad legal repercussions.

The case also draws parallels with Purcell v. Gonzales (2006), which warns courts against altering election protocols close to the voting timeframe to prevent voter confusion. However, the court order on Texas was issued way before the upcoming elections, making this argument seem irrelevant.

Nevertheless, Texas’s legal representatives argue that even an order nearly a year before elections disrupts their planning. They cite schedules and deadlines that would be affected without Supreme Court intervention.

The argument that judicial blocks on unconstitutional laws are not allowed a year prior to general elections is concerning, as it suggests little room to legally challenge potentially harmful election laws.

Setting a Troubling Precedent?

The notion of barring challenges to election laws twelve months ahead seems untenable; however, past cases hint that the Court might entertain this claim.

For instance, in Merrill v. Milligan (2022), the Supreme Court issued a stay on a lower court's decision nine months before the midterms, citing planning needs.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized electoral officials' need for time, arguing for a moratorium unless the issue is clearly unconstitutional, hinting that minimally plausible claims could be shielded.

While in the end, Alabama’s maps were deemed illegal, the leaning suggested by Merrill could imply a potential acceptance of Texas's request for similar delays, threatening timely constitutional rectification.