当民主党寻找方法来拖延，如果不是击败共和党重绘选举地图的努力他们说，为了在2026年中期选举前获得政治利益，他们可能不会从联邦法院获得多少帮助。
美国最高法院2019年具有里程碑意义的决定-鲁乔诉共同事业-将联邦法官几乎完全排除在调解纠纷之外党派的不公正划分。
“选区划分中过度的党派偏见会导致看起来相当不公正的结果。首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨写道:“但是，这种不公正的选区划分与民主原则不相容的事实，并不意味着解决办法在联邦司法部门。”。
这一裁决有效地关闭了法院大门，阻止了对创造性绘制的选举地图的法律挑战，这些地图稀释了某些选民基于党派关系的影响力。
“联邦法官无权在两大政党之间重新分配政治权力，宪法中没有合理的授权，也没有法律标准来限制和指导他们的决定，”罗伯茨在意见中总结道。
然而，种族是一个不同的问题，也是最高法院已经承认的问题法官的有限作用在1965年选举权法案的研究中。
该法第2条禁止以种族为由否认或剥夺投票权，这在历史上被解释为包括划分国会选区，这些选区"分裂"或"聚集"有色人种社区，以限制他们的影响力。
就在2023年，高等法院表示，下级法院可以干预“种族政治在选举过程中的过度作用”...剥夺了少数选民平等的参与机会。”
一些民主党人已经开始声称德州共和党的努力(以及其他州的)是出于种族动机。
得克萨斯州民主党众议员格雷格·卡萨尔(Greg Trump)周日对美国广播公司(ABC)的塞琳娜·王(Selina Wang)说:“他们进来打击奥斯汀的部分选民，然后将我的选区与(民主党)众议员劳埃德·道吉特(Lloyd Doggett)的选区合并，所有这些都是为了减少有色人种选民在选举中的发言权，让唐纳德·川普(Donald Trump)得到他喜欢的国会议员。”
前奥巴马司法部长转变为投票权倡导者埃里克霍尔德t老ABC新闻“本周”联合主持人乔治斯特凡诺普洛斯在周日他正在考虑在选举权法案的领导下提起新诉讼的可能性。“这真的加剧了他们已经做的事情，并加强了我们带来的情况，”霍尔德谈到德克萨斯州共和党人的重新划分选区的努力。
对任何新的德克萨斯州国会地图的基于种族的挑战都将通过法院大门，但它最终可能会面临持怀疑态度的最高法院，最高法院越来越多地寻求消除宪法下的任何种族因素。
法官们已经在考虑路易斯安那州的一个案例涉及到种族平等保护条款和投票权法案的利益冲突。原告声称种族被不允许地用来制造第2条下的歧视区;反对者认为，要求创建一个新的地图，明确说明种族本身就是违反色盲平等保护。
当法院今年秋天听取辩论时，有迹象表明几位法官可能会寻求严格限制或完全废除第2条。
“三十多年来，我一直呼吁对我们对2的解释进行系统的重新评估，”大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯写道六月。"我希望最高法院能很快意识到其判例与宪法之间的冲突太严重了，不容忽视。"
最终，尽管公众广泛抱怨不公正的选区划分及其带来的挑战，但最有可能和最持久的解决方案可能在于立法机构和国会。
首席大法官罗伯茨在书中写道:“由宪法制定者建立的、过去由国会使用的改革之路依然畅通。”鲁乔。
多年来，公平选区划分标准和独立委员会的提议一直在州议会和国会流传。
周一，一名共和党议员——加利福尼亚州众议员凯文·凯利(Kevin Kiley)——提出了一项法案，禁止在十年中期重新绘制全国范围内的国会地图。如果这一提议被采纳，它可能会停止目前正在进行的州政府重新划分选区的“军备竞赛”,尽管这看起来不太可能。
Redistricting battles in Texas and elsewhere: Will courts play a role?: ANALYSIS
As Democrats search for ways to delay, if not defeat, Republicanefforts to redraw election mapsfor political gain ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, they say, they may not find much help from federal courts.
A landmark 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court --Rucho v. Common Cause-- removed federal judges almost entirely from the business of mediating disputes overpartisan gerrymandering.
"Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
The ruling effectively shut the courthouse door on legal challenges to creatively-drawn electoral maps that dilute the influence of certain voters based on party affiliation.
"Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions," Roberts concluded in the opinion.
Race, however, is a different matter -- and one that the Supreme Court has recognizeda limited role for judgesin examining under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Section 2 of the Act prohibits the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, which has historically been interpreted to include the drawing of congressional districts that "crack" or "pack" communities of color in order to limit their influence.
As recently as 2023, the high court said lower courts could intervene in "instances of intensive racial politics where the excessive role [of race] in the electoral process ... den[ies] minority voters equal opportunity to participate."
Some Democrats have begun alleging that theTexas GOP effort(and those in other states) is racially motivated.
"They're coming in and cracking up parts of Austin voters and then merging my district with [Democratic] Congressman [Lloyd] Doggett's district, all with the intended effect of making it so that voters of color have less of a say in their elections, and so that Donald Trump gets his preferred member of Congress," Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar told ABC's Selina Wang on Sunday.
Former Obama attorney general turned voting rights advocate Eric Holder told ABC News "This Week" co-anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sundayhe is contemplating the possibility of new litigation under the Voting Rights Act. "This really exacerbates that which they've already done and strengthens the case that we have brought," Holder said of Texas' Republicans' redistricting efforts.
A race-based challenge to any new Texas congressional map would get through the courthouse door, but it could ultimately face a skeptical Supreme Court, which has increasingly looked to eliminate any racial considerations under the Constitution.
The justices are already consideringa case from Louisianainvolving the competing interests of the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act when it comes to race. Plaintiffs allege race was impermissibly used to create a discriminatory districts under Section 2; opponents argue that requiring a creation of new map that explicitly accounts for race is itself a violation of colorblind equal protection.
When the court hears arguments this fall, there are signs several of the justices could seek to have Section 2 strictly limited or struck down entirely.
"For over three decades, I have called for a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2," wrote Justice Clarence Thomasin June."I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore."
Ultimately, despite widespread public complaints about gerrymandering and the challenges it creates, the most likely and lasting solution may lie in legislatures and Congress.
"The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open," Chief Justice Roberts wrote inRucho.
Proposals for fair districting criteria and independent commissions have circulated in statehouses and Congress for years.
On Monday, one Republican lawmaker — Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — introduced a bill to ban mid-decade redrawing of congressional maps nationwide. Such a proposal could halt the state redistricting "arms race" now underway if it was adopted, though that looks highly unlikely.
