It’s felt like a head-spinning week on the topic of redistricting. We take stock after a major Supreme Court ruling and yet another state passing a new congressional map.
SACHA PFEIFFER, HOST:
It’s been a head-spinning week on the topic of redistricting. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority weakened protections against racial discrimination guaranteed by the Voting Rights Act. That same day, Florida Republican lawmakers passed a new gerrymandered congressional map. To tell us what all this means, we have two members of NPR’s voting team, correspondents Hansi Lo Wang and Ashley Lopez. Hi to both of you.
ASHLEY LOPEZ, BYLINE: Hey, there.
HANSI LO WANG, BYLINE: Hey, Sacha.
PFEIFFER: Would you first each start us off and tell us your main conclusions from the Supreme Court’s ruling this week? And, Ashley, why don’t you start?
LOPEZ: Yeah. Well, my takeaway is that redistricting in America is pretty much the Wild West now. There are very few rules lawmakers have to consider when they’re drawing up new political districts, and the people who will feel these changes most immediately will be voters who are generally at the whims of where politicians place them. I should also note, this isn’t the first time this conservative court has effectively removed one of these guardrails. The situation we are in right now with redistricting actually started in 2019, when they said partisan gerrymandering was not the purview of federal courts.
WANG: Yeah. The Voting Rights Act Section 2 – that’s the section the Supreme Court weakened this week – that was basically the main big rule left to follow when drawing maps. And with this Supreme Court ruling, Section 2 is now basically very, very hard – if not impossible – to enforce. So it’s arguably just words on a page now.
PFEIFFER: And, Hansi, this week’s decision from the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional map. But in recent months, the same court allowed maps in Texas and California to stand. How do we understand that?
WANG: Let’s start with the case about Louisiana’s map. The Supreme Court has changed what was its interpretation of the Voting Rights Act for decades, specifically protections against racial discrimination and redistricting. And under the court’s new interpretation, the conservative justices ruled that race was improperly used to draw Louisiana’s map, making it an illegal racial gerrymander. For the maps in California and Texas, the court ruled those were partisan gerrymanders. And like Ashley said before, the court effectively considers that fair game.
But here’s where it gets even more complicated. Let’s take a closer look at that Texas case. Last year, a lower court found that race likely played an illegal role in Texas’ new congressional map because top state lawmakers publicly suggested that they passed it to get rid of districts where Black and Latino voters make up the majority. But this week, the Supreme Court threw out that ruling with little explanation, and that has raised questions about how the court is playing referee in redistricting.
PFEIFFER: Ashley, right as this week’s Supreme Court decision came down, Florida was set to vote on a new congressional map. Did the Supreme Court decision affect Florida’s plans?
LOPEZ: I mean, not really because Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis had said he’d been factoring in a ruling in Louisiana’s case whenever he was asked about the state’s redistricting plans. But when it comes to partisan gerrymandering, this is something DeSantis has been a little more circumspect about, and that’s because Florida’s constitution outright bans redistricting that favors one party over the other. And so when asked about what prompted Florida’s redistricting efforts, DeSantis has said it was demographic changes in the state. This is, of course, a hard sell because this effort was launched right after President Trump set off this explicitly partisan nationwide redistricting battle.
PFEIFFER: Let’s talk about the implications – the effects of all this redistricting news – both in the short term and in the long term. Hansi, would you tell us about the short-term impact?
WANG: Well, in Louisiana, Republican officials say because the Supreme Court found their map is unconstitutional, they need a new congressional map in time for this year’s midterms, and so are Republicans in other southern states like Alabama and Tennessee. And Louisiana has gone as far as suspending its congressional primary, and that has led to lawsuits.
LOPEZ: And I mean, this has surely caused a lot of confusion and chaos in Louisiana. For one, absentee voting is underway. One of the lawsuits Hansi talked about cites that more than 100,000 ballots have been sent out, and early voting starts tomorrow. So all the ballots were already printed, and voters are going to see those slate of House races on their ballot. And even if they cast a vote on those races, barring a successful lawsuit, they won’t be counted.
PFEIFFER: Ashley, those are the immediate effects. What about long-term effects for redistricting in the future?
LOPEZ: I mean, for most states, it might just be too late for them to consider redrawing in time for their primary elections this year. But big picture, I mean, there is very little now to stop lawmakers from changing maps every two years. Already, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Democrats are eyeing big redraws in some blue states for 2028. So it is very unlikely that there will be anything to stop another drag-out fight for at least the next few cycles, which means voters might have, like, these ever-changing congressional districts from here on out.
WANG: You know, we’ve been talking about redistricting for Congress, but the way the Supreme Court undermined the Voting Rights Act this week, that is sending shockwaves through redistricting for all levels of government. I’m talking about state legislatures, city councils, school boards and other local government. And that is all worth watching too.
PFEIFFER: Thanks to both of you for covering this. That’s NPR’s Hansi Lo Wang and Ashley Lopez.
LOPEZ: Thank you.
WANG: You’re welcome.
Copyright © 2026 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
