[[link removed]]

TRUMP HAS NO CLUE WHAT HIS SUPREME COURT HAS JUST UNLEASHED  
[[link removed]]


 

Greg Sargent
May 1, 2026
The New Republic
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering points in one
direction only: Come 2028, Democrats have to declare a
take-no-prisoners redistricting war on the GOP. _

,

 

Now that the Supreme Court has gutted yet another piece f the Voting
Rights Act, this one concerning redistricting, here’s one thing we
know for sure: Democrats will have to enter into a new era of
procedural total war. That might make many of them uncomfortable, but
when it comes to the future of the liberal agenda, the stakes are
enormous.

With Donald Trump’s active encouragement
[[link removed]],
Republicans are already seizing on the ruling—which essentially
dismantled
[[link removed]]
protections against racial gerrymandering—to threaten to redraw maps
in the South to eliminate numerous congressional seats with Black
representatives. While it’s largely too late to do so this cycle,
Republicans will likely launch
[[link removed]]
mid-decade redistricting in many Southern states heading into 2028,
eliminating as many as 19 more Democratic seats
[[link removed]]
in hopes of locking in a near-permanent GOP majority.

In substantive and legal terms, this outcome is awful—see this
overview
[[link removed]]
from TNR’s Matt Ford for a full rundown—but in a purely political
sense, is this Armageddon for Democrats? Not necessarily. The reason?
Democrats can move to redraw maps in time for the 2028 elections in
states where they control the legislatures.

Which points to one big takeaway from the court ruling: State
legislative races—which already attract too little attention—just
got _a lot_ more important. Many races underway now will help
determine the party’s long-term prospects in the scorched-earth
conflict that’s about to unfold.

According to a new analysis by Fair Fight Action, a voting rights
group, Democrats could redraw anywhere from 10 to 22 additional
congressional seats for the party in time for the 2028 elections if
they push hard with redistricting in seven blue and swing states. The
analysis—which is circulating among Democratic leadership aides and
outside groups and was obtained by TNR—concludes that being
aggressive could theoretically offset Republican gains, even in a
maximalist GOP redistricting scenario.

“Democrats have a clear path to neutralize this GOP power grab if
they want to take it,” Max Flugrath, senior communications director
of Fair Fight Action, told me. “This is the ‘break glass in case
of emergency’ moment for American democracy.”

The range of potential Democratic gains is so broad because so much
depends on which party controls key state legislatures after the fall
elections. Strikingly, even if Democrats flip zero chambers, they can
redraw up to 10 additional congressional districts for the party, the
analysis finds, by maximizing gerrymanders in New York, Colorado,
Oregon, and Maryland, where Democrats control governorships and state
legislatures.

But even more strikingly, Democrats could redraw as many as 22
additional congressional districts for the party overall if they flip
legislative chambers in other states and redraw aggressively in them,
the analysis finds.

Take Wisconsin, where the governor is a Democrat and Republicans
control the state legislature. Democrats think they have a good shot
at flipping both legislative houses, due in part to dramatic
Democratic overperformances
[[link removed]]
in recent special elections.

Notably, Republicans control six congressional seats in Wisconsin
while Democrats control two. But the state is evenly divided, with
Democrats winning recent statewide elections there. Ironically,
precisely because Wisconsin has long been heavily gerrymandered for
the GOP, Democrats can now redraw three additional House districts for
themselves, the analysis finds, by unpacking current urban districts
and linking up Democratic voters in the north.

Then there’s Minnesota, where Democrats control the governorship and
state Senate. The state House is tied, but Democrats are bullish on
flipping at least one seat, which would mean a trifecta. While the
state constitution may bar an immediate redistricting, that could
theoretically be amended in time for Democrats to redistrict for the
2028 or 2030 elections.

Another possibility is Pennsylvania. This would require flipping one
legislative chamber, the Senate—and redrawing aggressively by
concentrating Republicans in central rural districts and spreading
around urban Democratic voters more, the Fair Fight Action analysis
finds. It argues that three congressional seats are gettable in
Wisconsin, three in Minnesota, and up to six in Pennsylvania.

“Twenty-two House seats across seven states may sound like a heavy
lift,” Flugrath told me. “But our analysis shows it’s well
within reach if blue-state governors and legislatures squeeze every
potential seat out of the maps.”

This blueprint attempts to quantify the very outer range of what’s
possible. Many challenges loom, such as that of protecting minority
voting while spreading votes around to maximal benefit. “This
analysis assumes that any responsive maps protect—not weaken—the
voting power of Black and Brown communities,” the memo says, urging
Democrats to avoid “splitting up voters of color or diluting their
representation.”

What’s more, much will be decided by _how_ hard Democrats push. But
they are gearing up: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told
Politico
[[link removed]]
that Democrats will seek gerrymanders at minimum in New York,
Colorado, Maryland, and Illinois.

Flipping more legislatures this cycle is also essential, however.
“The only path to ensure communities of color aren’t silenced into
perpetuity and Democrats have a shot at a durable U.S. House majority
is to win more statehouses,” Heather Williams, president of the
Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, told me. “This is an
all-hands-on-deck moment.”

Meanwhile, contests like the Georgia gubernatorial race have suddenly
taken on new importance. Republicans control the state legislature
there, and they’re already threatening
[[link removed]]
a gerrymander next year, but a Democratic governor could thwart it.
“As governor, I will veto any map that dilutes the voices of Black
and Latino voters,” Keisha Lance Bottoms, a leading Democratic
candidate in the state, told me in a statement.

To be clear, none of this _should_ have to happen. Though Democrats
have gerrymandered, themselves, over the years, Republicans went full
throttle
[[link removed]]
and never looked back after capturing many state legislatures in their
2010 midterm rout. Democrats have attempted for years to model an
alternative path with independent redistricting commissions in many
states
[[link removed]]
and with federal legislation ending gerrymandering for both sides.

The Democratic position, then, has long been that _neither side_
should gerrymander. It disrespects the opposition’s voters and
allows lawmakers
[[link removed]]
to insulate themselves from accountability. But _if _Republicans
insist on it, Democrats have no choice but to do the same.

The vain hope of many good-government liberals had been that charting
a path toward mutual de-escalation just might entice Republicans to
join them. But with Republicans openly threatening
[[link removed]] to maximize their
own gerrymanders after the court ruling, such hopes of mutual
forbearance are now plainly dead.

Yet if Democrats have a good cycle on the state legislative level,
there will be real opportunities to mitigate the GOP advantage. We
don’t know how willingly Democrats will undertake all this, but they
will undoubtedly come under intense pressure to do so. If Republicans
make good on their threats, the choice for Democrats will be stark:
Push forward, or perish. If Republicans don’t like it, too bad: This
is the world they wanted, and it is they who are now inflicting it
upon us.

_Greg Sargent is a staff writer at The New Republic and the host of
the podcast __The Daily Blast_
[[link removed]]_. A
seasoned political commentator with over two decades of experience, he
was a prominent columnist and blogger at The Washington Post from 2010
to 2023 and has worked at Talking Points Memo, New York magazine, and
the New York Observer. Greg is also the __author of the critically
acclaimed book_
[[link removed]]_
An Uncivil War: Taking Back Our Democracy in an Age of Disinformation
and Thunderdome Politics.  _

_The New Republic_ [[link removed]]_ was founded in 1914 to
bring liberalism into the modern era. The founders understood that the
challenges facing a nation transformed by the Industrial Revolution
and mass immigration required bold new thinking._

_Today’s New Republic is wrestling with the same fundamental
questions: how to build a more inclusive and democratic civil society,
and how to fight for a fairer political economy in an age of rampaging
inequality. We also face challenges that belong entirely to this age,
from the climate crisis to Republicans hell-bent on subverting
democratic governance._

_We’re determined to continue building on our founding mission._

_Sign up_ [[link removed]]_ for a TNR
newsletter on politics, climate, culture and more._

* SCOTUS
[[link removed]]
* Voting Rights Act
[[link removed]]
* Gerrymandering
[[link removed]]
* elections
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Bluesky [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]