EXCLUSIVE: 36 Seats Could Be Up for Grabs in New Supreme Court Redistricting Case

A major case working its way through the nation's top court could spell doom for Democrats retaking the U.S. House of Representatives—ever.

On August 1, the Supreme Court announced it would reexamine a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that mandates racial gerrymandering—"majority-minority" congressional maps that virtually guarantee a non-white candidate wins that House seat.

There are 144 majority-minority House districts in the United States, or 30% of all congressional seats. Just 23 of them elected Republicans last year, and Democrats historically controlled 5 of those.

The question before the court: Whether drawing racially gerrymandered maps violates the Civil War-era 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, which together mandate "equal protection" to all U.S. citizens regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." A decision is expected in October.

Should the court rule against the race requirement—a safe bet, given it easily overturned racially discriminatory college admissions in 2023 on the same grounds—it would give Republicans full control of redistricting as many as 36 House majority-minority seats currently held by Democrats after 2030, according to analysis by Restoration News.

2030 is the date of the next census, when House seats and electoral votes are reapportioned nationwide based on population growth and movement, after which the 50 states redraw their electoral maps for the next decade. Shorn of the race requirement, red state legislatures in states like Texas and Florida could redraw congressional maps that heavily favor Republicans—transforming dozens of safe Democrat districts into battlegrounds.

That figure rises to 40 newly competitive seats if Republicans win the 2026 gubernatorial elections in Pennsylvania and Michigan and take full control of their respective legislatures.

Affirmative Action for Congressmen

If Republicans netted even 10 new seats, that'd be a near-unstoppable House majority, considering the party only enjoys a 7-seat advantage. Think it can't happen? In fact, it's already in the works.

In July, Texas Republicans, led by Gov. Greg Abbott, started revising their congressional maps to add as many as 5 new GOP-leaning districts before the 2026 midterms. (Mid-decade redistricting is uncommon but lawful in most states.) Some 50 Democrats fled the state to Illinois to deny quorum and thwart the vote; the legislature has issued warrants for their arrest. The new maps could give Republicans control of perhaps 30 congressional seats in Texas alone, and that's under the Voting Rights Act's majority-minority requirement. What could they achieve without it?

A similar story played out in Louisiana, which prompted the Supreme Court case currently under review. Last year, a federal court forced the state to add a second majority-black district (CD-6) under the Voting Rights Act, where voters promptly elected a Democrat (51–38%). That lawsuit was led by the left-wing NAACP and Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, a radical get-out-the-vote group that works to elect Democrats.

Louisiana's second majority-minority district (CD 6) snakes across the state to reach enough black voters.

In response, a group of Louisiana voters sued in January on the grounds that the new district was drawn illegally using race as the predominant criterion, violating the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge panel agreed, and the case soon made its way to the Supreme Court.

Worth pointing out is the basket of leftist litigation groups that have poured into the lawsuit to defend race-based maps. The Elias Law Group is the Democratic Party's premier election litigator. The Constitutional Accountability Center works to fulfill "the progressive promise of the Constitution's text and history." The Southern Coalition for Social Justice, funded by George Soros, fights photo ID laws in red states. And the Public Rights Project supported unstaffed, unaccountable ballot dropboxes in Wisconsin with funding from Mark Zuckerberg.

Bring Out Your Hypocrites

This dire situation isn't lost on the Left. Just look at their reaction.

Democrats have argued that overturning the race-based requirement in the Voting Rights Act will promote gerrymandering, or drawing maps that unfairly favor one party over another. But they only complain when it costs them seats. In 2021, leftists cheered that "Latinos and Democrats benefit" from California's new map, which made five red seats more competitive. And they've sued ruthlessly to undo Republican maps in states like Wisconsin, where the party reached a deal with Democrat Gov. Tony Evers—only to be forced by court order to redraw the maps even more in Democrats' favor. Democrat strategists even marketed Wisconsin's April 2025 Supreme Court race as a "chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026" to donors.

Now California Democrats have threatened to further carve up another five red districts to counter Texas' revised map. The only hitch: Redistricting is handled by an independent commission created by voters in 2008. Ditto in Colorado, where at least one Democrat urged her party ignore the independent commission and redraw the map to counter Texas' decision.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who's spent the past decade suing red states to add more Democrat districts to the national map, is encouraging Democrats to ignore these commissions. "We do not oppose—on a temporary basis—responsible, responsive actions to ensure that the foundations of our democracy are not permanently eroded," he said.

The truth is there's no such thing as a "fair" map because redistricting is an exercise in political power, and always will be. And Democrats are losing that game. If conservatives play this smart, they'll copy Texas and start redrawing maps everywhere—and pray the Supreme Court abolishes race-based gerrymandering forever.

(READ MORE: Republicans, Go on Offense Against the National Popular Vote—Now!)