In his second column on redistricting for Roll Call, The Winston Group’s David Winston discusses the recent Supreme Court case on redistricting in Louisiana. He provides context for understanding the case by using the example of redistricting after the 1990 elections, and considers the impact of the decision on future redistricting efforts.
If and how the Callais decision gets translated into the immediate redrawing of congressional districts in individual states is the big variable going forward. There are several minority districts that could be redrawn, although the timetable for this may prevent action before the 2026 election.
Given that the RealClearPolitics generic ballot average favors Democrats today by seven points, some lean-Republican districts may be put into play — making the redrawing of districts more challenging. Democrats need to remember that when maps are pushed too far, as we are seeing in Virginia, leaning districts are just that. The same applies to Republicans.
The central question of the redistricting debate isn’t whether the Supreme Court’s ruling is a step backwards in terms of racial equality, or a judicial step forward toward the color blind redistricting that the Constitution requires. It’s whether the court’s decision to allow partisan gerrymandering serves our democratic process in the long run.
Read the full piece here.
