Supreme Court ruling could let GOP add 19 House seats and "clear the path for a one-party system"

[marmar]

Supreme Court ruling could let GOP add 19 House seats and “clear the path for a one-party system”
Supreme Court case could wipe out all Democratic-held seats in some deep-red Southern states

By Blaise Malley
National Affairs Fellow
Published October 8, 2025 1:40PM (EDT)


(Salon) As the Supreme Court prepares to rehear Louisiana v. Callais on October 15, Democratic voting rights groups are sounding the alarm: in a new report reviewed by Politico, Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund warn that scrapping Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could enable Republicans to redraw up to 19 House seats in their favor.

“While a ruling in time for next year’s midterms is unlikely, the organizations behind the report said that it’s not out of the question. Taken together, the groups identified 27 total seats that Republicans could redistrict in their favor ahead of the midterms — 19 of which stem from Section 2 being overturned,” Politico reports.

“Doing so would ‘clear the path for a one-party system where power serves the powerful and silences the people,” Black Voters Matter Fund co-founder LaTosha Brown said in a statement.

The report warns that as many as 30% of Congressional Black Caucus seats and 11% of Congressional Hispanic Caucus seats could be redrawn out of existence. ..........................(more)

https://www.salon.com/2025/10/08/supreme-court-ruling-could-let-gop-add-19-house-seats-and-clear-the-path-for-a-one-party-system/

[dalton99a]

1. The Trump Supreme Whorehouse will not disappoint

[Historic NY]

2. Democrats better wake the f--k up

[Vinca]

3. Republicans better wake up and vote for the Democrat in those districts if they expect to keep their country.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. We had states, other than California, that should have been moving to match the number of

gerrymandered districts that the Republicans were clearly planning to acquire for themselves.

So, what happened to the progress in the blue states to match them?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. The court will hear oral argument Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could further gut the landmark law that

The court will hear oral argument Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could further gut the landmark law that the court has already weakened.

MSNBC: The Voting Rights Act is at further risk as the Roberts Court hears Louisiana map appeal: The court will hear oral argument Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could further gut the landmark law that the court has already weakened. www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...

— (@jwwcan.bsky.social) 2025-10-15T14:10:59.334Z

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-supreme-louisiana-map-redistricting-rcna237637

While we rightly pay attention to how the Supreme Court is empowering President Donald Trump and his administration, the justices will hold a hearing Wednesday that highlights the Roberts Court’s priorities that predate Trump and will echo long after he leaves office.

Those priorities surface in the appeal, called Callais, with the question lurking in the background of whether the Constitution is “colorblind.” Though it isn’t the direct legal question in the case, it’s a notion that Chief Justice John Roberts and his Republican-appointed colleagues have embraced, notably in the Harvard case that gutted affirmative action in 2023. The Callais appeal raises the prospect of the court cutting out the remaining pillar of the landmark Voting Rights Act on similar grounds. The result could shape future U.S. elections and further help Republicans’ electoral prospects......

Colorblindness
Following the Roberts-led court’s hollowing out of another part of the Voting Rights Act in the 2013 Shelby County case, the remaining safeguard implicated by Callais is Section 2, which prohibits racially discriminatory voting practices or procedures.

The parties present opposing views on whether taking race into account when drawing districts can be necessary to realize the law’s promise or is necessarily anathema to the Constitution in 2025.

“Section 2 authorizes race-conscious remedies only where, when, and to the extent required to respond to a ‘regrettable reality’ of ongoing unequal electoral opportunity based on race,” lawyers representing Black voters wrote to the justices ahead of the hearing. Removing that section’s protections in Louisiana “will not end discrimination there or lead to a race-blind society, but it may well lead to a severe decrease in minority representation at all levels of government in many parts of the country,” they wrote.

Meanwhile, lawyers for Louisiana countered that the “invidious classifications underlying race-based redistricting present the last significant battle in defense of our ‘color blind’ Constitution.” They called the battle an “easy” one, citing the court’s statement in the Harvard affirmative action case that eliminating racial discrimination “means eliminating all of it.” The state said that means “no quarter for race-based redistricting.”

I am nervous. I remember Roberts gutting the Voting Rights Act in his Shelby County opinion where Roberts claimed that all racial discrimination had ended and so the Voting Rights Act was no longer needed.

[Hugin]

6. Based on the word "rehear" I think the Democrats need to respond as if it's a done deal.

Yeah, “rehear” is code for flip it on its ear.