SCOTUS Rulings on Gerrymandering Are Not a Threat to Democracy—They’re Exactly What the Constitution Demands

CNN recently ran with the breathless framing: Are Supreme Court rulings on gerrymandering a threat to democracy? Their latest coverage of the April 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais—where the Court struck down a Louisiana congressional map that created a second majority-Black district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander—paints the ruling as igniting a “gerrymandering scramble.” Republican-led states are supposedly rushing to redraw maps to their advantage, gutting the Voting Rights Act and leaving voters of color in the lurch. Chaos! Partisan warfare! Democracy in peril!

This is ridiculous.

The Supreme Court’s rulings—from the landmark 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision (which held that partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable political questions for federal courts) to this recent case limiting when race can predominate in map-drawing—are not undermining democracy. They are defending the constitutional design the Framers actually gave us. Congress can set certain nationwide rules for federal elections, but the states retain primary autonomy over their own redistricting. That’s not a bug. It’s the system working as intended.

Image of the Supreme Court of the United States

What the Constitution Actually Says

Look no further than Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution (the Elections Clause):

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

States draw the maps. Legislatures (or bodies authorized by state law, like independent redistricting commissions in some states) handle redistricting after each census. The federal government—through Congress—has the power to step in and set uniform standards if it chooses. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized this federalist balance. In Rucho, Chief Justice Roberts was clear: there is no judicially manageable standard for federal courts to police “partisan fairness,” and the Framers left this to the political branches (states first, Congress as backstop).

The recent Louisiana ruling follows the same logic. It doesn’t bless unlimited racial gerrymandering or ignore the Voting Rights Act entirely. It simply tightens the standard so that states aren’t forced to draw bizarre, race-predominant districts that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment when partisan considerations could achieve similar goals without race as the dominant factor. That’s not “gutting” democracy—it’s preventing courts from becoming super-legislatures that override elected state bodies.

Our Podcast Take: Gerrymandering Is Real—But the Fix Isn’t Federal Overreach

In our latest podcast episode on gerrymandering, we didn’t sugarcoat it. Both parties have engaged in aggressive redistricting to maximize political advantage and perpetuate power. Packing opponents into a few districts or cracking them across many to dilute their voting strength is a temptation as old as the republic. It reduces competition, entrenches incumbents, and breeds cynicism when voters feel their maps were drawn to predetermine outcomes.

We argue strongly that states should restrict themselves. Many already do:

• Adopt independent redistricting commissions (as in California, Michigan, and others).

• Enforce strict state constitutional criteria for compactness, contiguity, respect for county lines, and communities of interest.

• Require transparency in the map-drawing process with public input and multiple draft maps.

• Prohibit or severely limit mid-decade redistricting outside of court order or census.

Virginia provides a perfect real-world example. In 2020, Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment creating a bipartisan redistricting commission designed to curb partisan gerrymandering. This was a strong, state-driven reform that took map-drawing power partly out of the hands of the legislature and imposed structural guardrails.

Yet in 2026, the Democratic-led legislature attempted to circumvent that very restriction. They pushed a new constitutional amendment allowing the General Assembly to redraw congressional maps mid-decade. Voters narrowly approved it in a special April election, but the Virginia Supreme Court (SCOVA) struck it down in a 4-3 ruling on May 8, 2026. The Court found that lawmakers violated the state constitution’s procedural requirements for amendments—specifically, the need for an intervening general election of the House of Delegates between the two required legislative votes. By rushing the process (with the second vote coming after early voting had begun), they tainted the referendum. The original commission-drawn maps remain in place.

This episode perfectly illustrates both the promise and the peril of state-level self-restriction: Virginia did restrict itself through its constitution, but when one party saw political opportunity, it tried to bypass those rules. The state court enforced the constitution, showing that accountability can—and should—happen at the state level without federal intervention.

Even more concerning, some Democrats are now floating radical ideas to remove or effectively stack the SCOVA in response to the ruling. Discussions—including involvement from national figures like House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries—have included proposals to lower the mandatory retirement age for justices (potentially to 54, targeting the youngest in the majority) to force retirements and allow the Democratic-controlled General Assembly to appoint a new slate of justices more likely to uphold the gerrymandered map. This would be a blatant court-packing scheme at the state level to nullify a constitutional ruling.

Such moves represent a greater threat to democracy than any redistricting dispute. They embody the dangerous principle of changing the rules of the game simply because you don’t like the outcome. When courts enforce clear constitutional procedures, the proper response is to respect the ruling, amend the constitution properly, or persuade voters—not to purge and replace the judiciary to get a more compliant bench. This undermines the independence of the judiciary, erodes public trust in institutions, and turns state government into a raw exercise of partisan power rather than the rule of law.

These are healthy, state-driven reforms that respect federalism. Voters in those states can hold their legislatures accountable at the ballot box or through state constitutional amendments.

What we warn against is federal over-involvement. Turning redistricting into a one-size-fits-all Washington mandate risks turning every map into a perpetual federal court battle or a tool of whichever party controls Congress at the moment. That doesn’t enhance democracy—it centralizes power and invites the same partisan gamesmanship at a national scale.

What Congress Can and Cannot Do on Redistricting

To be clear on the constitutional lines:

Congress CAN:

• Pass federal legislation under the Elections Clause regulating the “manner” of House elections. Examples include the longstanding requirement of single-member districts (codified in federal law since the 1960s) and proposals (that have repeatedly failed) to ban partisan gerrymandering, mandate independent commissions nationwide, or impose specific criteria like compactness or limits on mid-decade redraws.

• Multiple comprehensive redistricting reform bills have been introduced and passed the House in recent years—most notably the For the People Act (H.R. 1) under Democratic control—but have died in the Senate because they could not secure the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Similar efforts have faced the same fate under periods of Republican Senate influence. This gridlock is structural, not uniquely attributable to one party; the 60-vote threshold has blocked major nationwide changes regardless of which party held the majority.

• Alter state regulations by statute—as long as it doesn’t violate other constitutional protections (e.g., equal population under the 14th Amendment or Voting Rights Act prohibitions on racial discrimination).

• Enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments through appropriate legislation.

Congress CANNOT:

• Directly draw congressional districts itself (that power stays with state legislatures or authorized bodies unless a court intervenes after a violation is proven).

• Ignore the constitutional structure by, say, completely stripping states of their primary role without passing valid legislation.

• Invent vague “fairness” standards that federal courts would then have to enforce indefinitely—that’s precisely what the Supreme Court in Rucho said is not a judicial function.

Congress has the tool if it wants nationwide reform. It has chosen not to use it broadly, largely because the politics don’t align. That leaves the states—and state voters—as the primary check.

The Real Threat to Democracy

The real concern lies not in the Supreme Court's role, but in the erosion of federalism—the principle that allows states to innovate, compete, and be accountable to their residents. Redistricting should occur solely to reflect demographic changes within the state, rather than being manipulated for political advantage. Both political parties raise the alarm about “gerrymandering” only when it serves their interests. The solution is not to impose a national standard or to undermine state courts when their rulings are unfavorable, but rather for states to uphold integrity in their processes. Voters must set aside political partisanship and demand that their states adhere to their own regulations.

As discussed in the podcast, the principle that politicians should not choose their voters is crucial. The Constitution empowers states primarily, with Congress serving as a secondary option. This framework does not threaten democracy; it is, in fact, a reflection of the Constitution itself.

What do you think? Drop your thoughts in the comments, and be sure to listen to our full podcast discussion for the deeper dive. Let’s keep pushing for reforms that actually strengthen self-government instead of outsourcing it to Washington or the courts.