Contributor: The Supreme Court's 3 flawed justifications for upholding Texas' racially biased map

On Thursday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Texas to implement a new congressional map that is expected to favor Republicans by adding five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. In a 6-3 ruling, the Courts conservative majority effectively permitted a state to adopt voting maps that may be unconstitutional, at least for the upcoming election.

Following requests from former President Trump, the Republican-led Texas Legislature redrew congressional districts to maintain party control of the House. Governor Greg Abbott signed the plan into law on October 25, immediately triggering a legal challenge.

The case was initially heard by a three-judge federal panel, which conducted a nine-day trial including nearly two dozen witnesses and thousands of exhibits, generating over 3,000 pages of factual record. In a 160-page opinion, the federal court concluded that Texas had used race as a primary factor in designing the districts, violating long-standing Supreme Court precedent on equal protection.

Despite this, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts ruling, providing three justifications. First, it claimed the lower court failed to respect a presumption of legislative good faith, ignoring detailed evidence that the map was intentionally designed to favor Republican candidates. Standard appellate practice requires deference to lower court findings unless clearly mistaken, which the Supreme Court did not follow.

Second, the Court argued that the district court should have proposed an alternative map that achieved the same partisan objectives without using race. Critics highlight that this expectation is unreasonable, as it effectively conditions a ruling on finding a politically favorable solution. Justice Elena Kagan emphasized in dissent that the absence of an alternative map does not negate evidence of racial considerations in districting.

Finally, the Court cited the timing of the challenge relative to the November 2026 midterm elections, invoking the Purcell principle which discourages courts from altering election rules close to voting. The majority said the lower court improperly interfered in an ongoing primary, creating confusion. Yet, the principle has no clearly defined boundaries, and in this case, the challenge was filed almost a year before the election, after Abbott signed the map in late October, and the lower court promptly issued a ruling on November 18.

The decision has profound implications. It suggests that if a state enacts potentially unconstitutional voting or districting rules sufficiently close to an election, they could be immune from judicial review until after voters cast their ballots. Justice Kagan warned that such a precedent could allow states to conduct unlawful elections without consequences.

This ruling not only affects Texas but may also influence other states, including California, Missouri, and North Carolina, where similar legal challenges could be delayed or blocked. The Supreme Courts action demonstrates a significant shift in its willingness to enforce constitutional protections in the context of election laws, potentially shaping the political landscape for the next midterm elections.

Author: Gavin Porter