by Vanguard Staff
Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, warned this week that the 2026 election will take place in what he described as a political system warped by Supreme Court decisions that have encouraged partisan gerrymandering and eroded protections for voters of color.
“The 2026 election will take place in a political system that is divided, discordant, flagrantly gerrymandered, and marked by widening racial discrimination,” Waldman wrote in The Briefing, the Brennan Center’s weekly democracy newsletter. “Thank Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the Supreme Court.”
Waldman’s commentary, published Tuesday by the Brennan Center, argues that the court’s recent and long-running interventions in election law have fundamentally reshaped the structure of American democracy. He wrote that a supermajority of justices now appears prepared to further narrow the remaining safeguards embedded in federal voting law, deepening partisan distortion and racial inequities in political representation.
Central to Waldman’s critique is the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which rejected challenges to partisan gerrymandering and held that federal courts lack authority to set standards limiting political manipulation of district maps. The ruling left oversight largely to state courts and legislatures, a shift Waldman said predictably resulted in more aggressive map drawing following the 2020 census.
Redistricting is constitutionally tied to the decennial census, but Waldman pointed to Texas’ decision earlier this year to redraw its congressional districts mid-decade as evidence of how far partisan actors are now willing to go. He wrote that the new Texas maps were designed to produce additional Republican seats and did so “all at the expense of Black and Latino voters,” despite those communities accounting for roughly 95 percent of the state’s population growth.
A panel of the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the Texas maps, finding them unlawful and ordering that they not be used until a full trial could be held. As the litigation proceeded, Texas officials offered shifting justifications for the redistricting effort, alternately denying partisan intent, claiming federal pressure related to race, and ultimately acknowledging a partisan objective.
The Supreme Court later stepped in, blocking the lower court’s order and allowing the election to proceed using the new district lines. Waldman described the move as a use of the court’s emergency or “shadow” docket, noting that the ruling came with limited briefing, no oral argument, and only a brief explanation.
He wrote that the Texas decision triggered a national partisan response. California voters approved drawing new Democratic-leaning districts to counter Republican gains, while Republicans in Indiana and Florida signaled plans to redraw their own maps. Democrats in Illinois, Maryland, and Virginia also moved toward similar efforts. Waldman argued that while this back-and-forth could ultimately wash out in partisan terms, the resulting instability reflects a system increasingly detached from voter choice.
Waldman also warned that the Supreme Court’s next intervention could have even broader consequences. He wrote that the justices appear poised to weaken or dismantle Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which for decades has barred states from adopting election practices or district maps that dilute the voting power of racial minorities.
Two weeks ago, the court heard arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging the constitutionality of Section 2. Waldman wrote that the provision has played a decisive role in reshaping Congress and state legislatures nationwide and in narrowing racial disparities in voter registration. He cautioned that a ruling undermining Section 2 could prompt another wave of redistricting, potentially in time to affect the 2026 elections.
As Brennan Center colleague Kareem Crayton wrote in response to the case, “The argument invites a return to the era when race was a barrier to entry for political representation — the cruel and painful experience of political exclusion that made passage of the Voting Rights Act necessary in the first place.”
Waldman cited analysis by New York Times journalist Nate Cohn, who has estimated that an extreme ruling could allow Republican-led states to eliminate between six and 12 congressional districts currently held by Democrats. Waldman noted that such a shift would exceed the size of recent House majorities and could decisively shape control of Congress.
“When politicians pick voters — whether based on race or politics — instead of the other way around, our elections become less fair and less democratic,” Waldman wrote, arguing that the result is deeper polarization and diminished public faith in democratic institutions.
As a remedy, Waldman called on Congress to enact national redistricting standards applicable to both red and blue states. He pointed to the Constitution’s explicit grant of authority to Congress over federal elections and cited the near passage of the Freedom to Vote Act, which would have barred mid-decade redistricting, and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would have strengthened protections against discriminatory maps.
Waldman also criticized the Supreme Court’s broader record on democracy-related cases. He cited decisions on campaign finance, voting rights, and presidential immunity as evidence that the court has consistently intervened in ways that expand executive and political power while limiting accountability.
“The Supreme Court itself, increasingly, will become an issue in American politics,” Waldman wrote. “That’s as it should be.”
Waldman is the author of The Supermajority and The Fight to Vote, both published by Simon & Schuster. He serves as president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute focused on democracy and constitutional reform. He also hosts The Briefing with Michael Waldman, a podcast examining democracy, justice and the rule of law. The full essay, “Supreme Court Hammers Away at Democracy,” is available on the Brennan Center’s website.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
