Supreme Court Allows New California Voting Map for Midterms (2)

The US Supreme Court cleared California to use its new congressional map that favors Democrats during this year’s midterm election, giving the party a pathway to neutralize anticipated Republican gains in the House due to new districts in Texas.

The justices on Wednesday denied a request from the California Republican party and the US Department of Justice to prevent the state from using its new voter-approved map on the grounds that it was racially gerrymandered and therefore illegal. California leaders have maintained that the new map was drawn purely to counteract the Republican redistricting in Texas and that race was not a factor.

The court rejected the request in a one-sentence order, without explanation or any noted dissent.

The decision essentially creates a level playing field going into the midterm election, largely resolving the nationwide partisan redistricting fight that started when President Donald Trump directed Texas to redraw its congressional districts to favor Republicans. The stakes for Trump during the midterms are massive, as a Democrat-controlled House could significantly dilute his powers.

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November.”

The US Department of Justice and the California Republican Party did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Read more: Democrats Hold Early Midterms Advantage With Trump Under Fire

The Supreme Court previously allowed Texas to use its new Republican-drawn congressional map during the midterm elections, despite a lower court ruling that race was improperly used in crafting the new district lines. The map sought to create five new GOP-leaning congressional seats, although some experts say new polling data suggests Republican candidates may not be able to win all of the new districts.

To offset the Texas map, California leaders revised the state’s congressional districts to create five new Democratic-leaning seats. The map was approved by voters last year.

Lawyers for California cited the high court’s decision on Texas’ maps in arguing their own case, stating that it is “a natural political objective” for Republicans to want to retain their House majority and it was similarly “natural” for Newsom to want to counteract that strategy.

“But what is deeply unnatural — indeed, contrary to fundamental principles of democracy and judicial impartiality — is plaintiffs’ request for this court to step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage by enjoining California’s partisan gerrymander after having allowed Texas’s to take effect,” they said in the filing.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta applauded the ruling and said in a statement that it is “good news not only for Californians, but for our democracy.”

Read more: What’s at Stake in Fight Over the Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court is separately deliberating over a Louisiana case that could sharply limit the use of the Voting Rights Act to create predominantly Black or Hispanic election districts. A ruling for Louisiana’s Republican leaders would eliminate one of the state’s majority-Black – and heavily Democratic – congressional districts and raise questions about similar seats in other states.

The case is Tangipa v. Newsom, 25A839.

--With assistance from Greg Stohr.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Madlin Mekelburg in Austin at mmekelburg@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman at ewasserman2@bloomberg.net

Steve Stroth

© 2026 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.