Partisan or Racial? When is "Gerrymandering" Allowed, and How Will it Affect 2026 Midterms?
The 2026 midterm election is rapidly approaching, with both the Republican and Democratic parties engaged in a vigorous contest for control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.
As is customary, the redrawing of congressional districts following the decennial census has proved contentious in both battleground and deeply divided states. For instance, California enacted Proposition 50, which authorizes the California legislature to redraw its federal congressional districts for use from 2026 to 2030, superseding the independently drawn map from 2020. This action followed Governor Abbot of Texas directing the state legislature to redraw their map for the upcoming election, a move intended to increase the number of Republican seats in Congress. The Supreme Court has since intervened to resolve several disputes.
Four days prior, on December 4, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its orders, including the granting of a stay for Abbot v. League of United Latin American Citizens. In this decision, Justice Alito permitted Texas to utilize the mid-decade map it had drawn for the 2026 midterm elections.
It is first essential to comprehend the types of gerrymandering permissible under the color of law in the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” which mandates that the government treat individuals equally. This principle is reinforced by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlaws the dilution of individuals’ voting power on the basis of their race or color. Theoretically, and a position subsequently adopted by the Court, gerrymandering is defined as the political act of drawing maps to confer an advantage upon one political party, independent of race. Consequently, gerrymandering cases such as Rucho v. Common Clause have clarified that the Court has no Constitutional power to rule on partisan gerrymandering, while does with racial gerrymandering. Indeed, in Abbot v. LULAC, Justice Alito stated, “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”
It is important to note that Justice Alito is allowing California to also use its mid-decade congressional map it drew in response to Texas.
Nevertheless, the influence of race, even if indirect, on gerrymandering has been the subject of extensive study. A 2023 Cambridge University study, published in the American Political Science Review, determined that race accounted for sixty percent of the variation in voting behavior during the 2020 and 2016 presidential elections. Thirty percent of this variation was attributed to geography.
However, this narrative is more complex upon closer examination. The researchers found that Hispanic and white voters exhibited the greatest variation, even across different geographical areas. For instance, in the 2016 presidential election, forty percent of white voters in Massachusetts supported the Republican candidate, compared to eighty-four percent of white voters in Mississippi. This discrepancy highlights geography as a significant factor for Hispanic and white voters. Conversely, Black voters consistently voted for the Democratic candidate irrespective of their location. The researchers ultimately posited that “perhaps the racial divide—at least as a deciding factor in voting behavior—is receding relative to other factors.”
Other pertinent factors include group consciousness and linked fate. Group consciousness is defined as the political awareness of belonging to a racial group, sharing common experiences, and believing that the group should act in concert; linked fate is the conviction that the destiny of one’s group is inextricably tied to one’s own personal destiny. A 2016 National Institutes of Health paper reported that Black individuals demonstrate the strongest levels of group consciousness and linked fate belief. This finding helps to account for the enduring political cohesion among Black voters across geographical boundaries and over time, given the history of slavery, the Jim Crow era, the Civil Rights movement, and the pervasive systemic disadvantages that Black Americans continue to face. These historical and contemporary factors, combined with group consciousness and linked fate, contribute to the consistent and overwhelming Democratic voting pattern observed among Black Americans across different regions.
The same NIH study indicated that Latinos exhibit mixed results. Similar to Black Americans, they demonstrate high levels of group consciousness but considerably low levels of linked fate belief. This observation may account for the demonstrable influence of geography on their political identity, as evidenced by the Cambridge University study. Conversely, group consciousness and linked fate beliefs are weakest among white Americans; given the findings of the aforementioned study, this outcome is not surprising and is exemplified by the Cambridge University study.
Turning to Abbot v. LULAC, Justice Alito reversed the lower court’s determination that Texas’ redrawn map had considered race. He contended that the lower court failed to afford good faith to the government’s assertion that it did not directly consider race in its districting plan. Justice Kagan, in her dissent, argued that the nine days of oral arguments heard by the lower court supported its conclusion that race was ultimately a determining factor. The aforementioned papers suggest that the accurate interpretation lies somewhere between the positions of both justices. Race is strongly correlated with partisan identity for Black voters and a significant proportion of Hispanic voters. However, it proves insufficient as a sole indicator for Asian and White voters, for whom geography may offer a more robust explanation of their partisan identity.
Where does Michigan play into this?
The repercussions of the Texas-California dispute, coupled with the Supreme Court’s order, extend to Michigan. As a key swing state, Michigan is a pivotal factor in presidential elections. Similar to California, Michigan employs an independent redistricting committee. The Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) comprises four Democratic citizens, four Republican citizens—none of whom have held recent governmental roles—and five independent or non-majority party members. This configuration, featuring an equal number of Democratic and Republican commissioners alongside an odd number of unaffiliated members, is intended to ensure bipartisan representation while preventing impasses. However, since the commission’s adoption only eight years ago, the state has already contended with legal challenges concerning racial gerrymandering. The map drawing following the 2020 census marked the MICRC’s inaugural effort, for which they relied on hired expertise. In 2023, a coalition of Black voters from Detroit filed suit against the Michigan Secretary of State, the MICRC, and its members, alleging racial discrimination in the map-drawing process.
In Agee v. Benson, the federal court determined that the map had indeed violated the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by utilizing race as a determining factor. Consequently, the Commission redrew the maps, which the court subsequently approved. This immediate action resulted in a Democratic trifecta in the state for the 2023-2024 legislative session. Currently, Republicans maintain a slim majority in the lower legislative chamber. Prior to the commission’s adoption (from 2011 to 2018), Republicans held a trifecta in the state.
As both Republicans and Democrats intensely pursue additional seats in the House of Representatives, the question remains whether Michigan will follow a similar trajectory. Given that California, which also utilizes an independent redistricting commission, recently redrew its map to exhibit a high degree of gerrymandering, the possibility of Michigan replicating this pattern warrants examination. Multiple factors influence whether Michigan will redraw its maps; however, should the state proceed with redistricting, Michigan, as a Midwestern state, presents a strong argument that for its non-Black voters, the correlation between race and partisan identity is not strong. The Cambridge University study, complemented by the NIH paper, posits that for Midwestern voters, geography and the rural-urban divide exert a greater influence. Regarding race, it is noteworthy that even the researchers stipulate that it is a diminishing factor relative to others. Consequently, should Michigan follow suit, it could readily demonstrate that partisanship was the primary influence, and the courts appear poised to uphold the hypothetical maps following the precedent set in Abbot v. LULAC. Nevertheless, it appears likely that Michigan will avoid involvement in this controversy entirely.
