In a brief Supreme Court order issued Thursday with little explanation — a hallmark of the justices’ shadow docket — the nation’s highest court gave the green light to Texas’ mid-decade redistricting plan that is blatantly designed to boost the number of Republican-controlled seats in the House and thus help the party retain control of the chamber.
The ruling was immediately framed in media reports as a win for President Trump, who demanded that lawmakers in Texas and other red states try to gain party advantage in the 2026 midterms by rigging the system rather than campaigning on ideas. But the court’s order also effectively blessed California’s new redistricting plan, which was passed as a defensive measure to blunt the impact of Texas’ gerrymander and was being challenged by the Department of Justice.
California’s plan was very different from the Lone Star State’s: It was a ballot initiative that was broadly approved by voters, not pushed through by state lawmakers as in Texas. It also provided that if Texas stood down on its plan or if its map were to be struck down by courts, California would revert to its previous map. It was a clear effort to nullify Texas’ efforts to rig the electorate rather than a Democratic power grab.
But this doesn’t change the fact that gerrymandering battles produce no real winners, only a loss for democracy. And the court’s ruling will only cause the already escalating redistricting race to the bottom to get worse.
It started long before Thursday’s ruling. While the Constitution provides for congressional reapportionment to take place every 10 years, reflecting the results of the most recent headcount of Americans done via the US census, this year an array of states have taken it upon themselves to implement new maps mid-decade with an eye to gaining an advantage in next year’s midterm races. So far six states — California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Utah — have already implemented new congressional maps while four more states have redistricting plans in progress, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
That Republican-controlled state legislatures are leading the charge in these efforts has caused some to push for more blue states, including Maine, to join in the fray. As California did, blue states would be wise to heed these calls while there is still time to blunt the Republican offensive before next year’s elections.
But these line-drawing contests won’t fix our democracy or protect free and fair elections. Regardless of the outcome, they will only encourage racial gerrymandering (which is exactly what Texas did, according to a federal court ruling last month), probably violate many voters’ civil rights, and make elections less competitive. In essence, this practice will create a system where voters don’t choose their preferred politicians but rather politicians choose their preferred voters.
There have even been threats of violence directed at lawmakers and their families in an effort to pressure them to back some of the recent proposed gerrymanders in states such as Indiana.
But there is a way to end this, and it lies in the hands of Congress.
It’s true that in recent history, expecting Congress to accomplish anything can feel like a pipe dream. But both major parties at some point must come to the realization that hyper-politicizing the redistricting process, whether done at the behest of a president trying desperately to grow his power or to defend against such a gambit, is as unsustainable as it is undemocratic.
Scholars and civic organizations have offered a plethora of plans for permanent changes to the way congressional districts are drawn to make the House more representative of and responsive to Americans. Many call for enlarging the number of House seats using a variety of formulas. One, called the Wyoming Rule, would restrict the population of any congressional district to no greater than the nation’s smallest, Wyoming’s single district. Others have different formulas but all attempt to get closer to what the Framers of the Constitution designed to be the more representative of Congress’s two houses.
As noted in the recent report by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, while returning to the 30,000-person cap on districts of the Framers’ time, which would create in excess of 10,000 House members today, is unachievable, “the goal of closer connections between members of Congress and constituents should not be.” There is nothing special about the House’s current size, 435 members, and no practical reason why it couldn’t be double or triple its current size.
Congress needs to make that happen. Voters can demand it. Americans deserve it. And democracy requires it.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.