STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
OK, the Supreme Court has given President Trump and the Republican Party a boost in their fight to skew the results of congressional elections.
MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
Yesterday, the court said Texas may use a new congressional map designed to give Republicans a shot at five extra House seats in next year's election. The court turned aside a lower court ruling that found a likelihood that this new map is racially discriminatory.
INSKEEP: NPR's Hansi Lo Wang has been following the gerrymandering battle, which of course is nationwide. Many states now involved. Hansi, good morning.
HANSI LO WANG, BYLINE: Good morning, Steve.
INSKEEP: OK, so what was the lower court ruling that the Supreme Court says doesn't apply, they paused?
WANG: Well, this was a three-judge panel, the majority ruling written by a judge nominated by President Trump. The Supreme Court has put a pause on this order. And this order by the lower court found that this congressional map Texas passed back in August is likely unconstitutional because it discriminates against voters based on race. This lower court ruling cited a letter that the Justice Department wrote to Texas officials and multiple public statements by key Republican state lawmakers involved in developing the map. And it all suggests Texas lawmakers passed this map to eliminate existing districts in Texas where Black and Latino voters together make up the majority.
INSKEEP: Oh, that's interesting. Why then did the Supreme Court say, no, you're wrong, go ahead and use the map?
WANG: Well, the majority of conservative justices on the Supreme Court basically sided with Texas state lawmakers, who have said they were not motivated by race and were driven instead to draw new districts that are more likely to elect Republicans. The court's majority wrote that the lower court ruling, quote, "failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith." And the majority also said the lower court, quote, "improperly inserted itself into" Texas' primary campaign by releasing its ruling last month in the middle of the candidate filing period.
INSKEEP: I was reading the rather short ruling on this, rather short opinion. And I am fascinated by that idea that the court should have presumed that the Texas legislature did not mean to do it, that that should be the presumption going in. Was there any dissent in this?
WANG: Yes. The court's three liberal justices dissented. Justice Elena Kagan wrote their dissenting opinion and said that the court's majority decision to allow Texas to use this map for next year's midterms, quote, "ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race," and that violates the Constitution.
INSKEEP: I was interested also that the court ruling acknowledged the broader context here and said this is now spread to be a redistricting fight in state after state after state across the country. Where do things stand?
WANG: Yeah, there's a lot going on, but let's start with California. Voters in that state approved a Democratic-friendly congressional map last month to counter the Texas map that President Trump pushed for to help Republicans and the Supreme Court is now allowing. And this month, a federal court is holding a hearing on whether to block California's map for the midterms. Last week, a different federal court ruled to allow North Carolina to use a new Republican-friendly map. Missouri's Republican-friendly map is still facing lawsuits and a referendum effort. And I'm keeping watch for potential new maps coming out of Florida, Indiana, New York and Virginia.
INSKEEP: Busy man. Is the Supreme Court done with this topic?
WANG: No. There's a major voting rights case I'm also watching about Louisiana's congressional map. The Supreme Court may rule on that very soon. And depending on what and when the court decides in that case, there may be another wave of congressional gerrymandering, particularly in southern states.
INSKEEP: NPR's Hansi Lo Wang. Thanks for the update.
WANG: You're welcome, Steve. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
