Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
How the Supreme Court Warps This "Bedrock Principle" of Election Law to Help Republicans Win - Balls and Strikes
Balls and StrikesAfter a disastrous showing in the November 2025 elections and under pressure from President Donald Trump, many Republican-controlled legislatures are looking to (further) gerrymander their states prior to the 2026 midterms. The Court’s recent shadow docket decision permitting Texas Republicans to use their new map in 2026 is just the latest signal that whatever Republicans try, the U.S. Supreme Court will back them up.
Even more alarming is that other Republican-controlled states have been expanding on the same playbook that Texas just used to sneak in its illegal map. And under the Roberts Court’s application of what’s become known as the Purcell principle, Republican states can deliberately time redistricting to dodge meaningful judicial review, knowing that the Court’s commitment to GOP-friendly elections will beat out the Court’s concern for consistency with its own precedent and logic.
In the spring, facing declining poll numbers and broad backlash to his signature policies, President Donald Trump started pushing lawmakers in red states to redraw their maps, hoping to increase Republicans’ odds of holding the House in the 2026 midterm elections. In Texas, this effort resulted in a proposal to flip up to five Democratic seats in a congressional delegation that Republicans already control 25-13, which would give the GOP 79 percent of the state’s representatives despite winning only 58 percent of votes statewide in 2024.
Minority voters and advocacy groups filed suit, and a three-judge panel of federal judges determined in November that the map constituted an illegal racial gerrymander and blocked its use for the 2026 midterms. Weeks later, though, the Supreme Court stayed the decision in Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens. Although the majority did not explain its reasoning, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurrence claiming that the lower court had “failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith,” and “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.”
Even more alarming is that other Republican-controlled states have been expanding on the same playbook that Texas just used to sneak in its illegal map. And under the Roberts Court’s application of what’s become known as the Purcell principle, Republican states can deliberately time redistricting to dodge meaningful judicial review, knowing that the Court’s commitment to GOP-friendly elections will beat out the Court’s concern for consistency with its own precedent and logic.
In the spring, facing declining poll numbers and broad backlash to his signature policies, President Donald Trump started pushing lawmakers in red states to redraw their maps, hoping to increase Republicans’ odds of holding the House in the 2026 midterm elections. In Texas, this effort resulted in a proposal to flip up to five Democratic seats in a congressional delegation that Republicans already control 25-13, which would give the GOP 79 percent of the state’s representatives despite winning only 58 percent of votes statewide in 2024.
Minority voters and advocacy groups filed suit, and a three-judge panel of federal judges determined in November that the map constituted an illegal racial gerrymander and blocked its use for the 2026 midterms. Weeks later, though, the Supreme Court stayed the decision in Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens. Although the majority did not explain its reasoning, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurrence claiming that the lower court had “failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith,” and “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.”
The Supreme Court's Purcell "principle" is an intentionally flexible standard that allows the justices to do what it takes to help Republican candidates win elections
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis.net) 2025-12-15T17:45:27.552Z
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
... a Greek philosopher constantly searching for an honest man. Don't think he had much luck. 