America’s political landscape is once again being remade by the twin forces of redistricting and Supreme Court maneuvering, as Republicans and Democrats wage high-stakes battles over the future shape of Congress and the nation’s highest court. On August 18, 2025, these contests reached new heights, with Republican leaders in Texas attempting to push through a gerrymandered congressional map at the urging of President Donald Trump, while Democrats in California and New York threatened to retaliate with their own redistricting efforts. At the same time, inside the White House, officials and conservative lawyers began quietly preparing for the possibility of a Supreme Court vacancy during Trump’s second term—a move that could cement the Court’s conservative tilt for decades.
The redistricting fight in Texas erupted when state Democratic lawmakers staged a dramatic walkout, fleeing the state Capitol to deny Republicans the quorum needed to pass their proposed map. According to New York Magazine, this bold move came in response to what Democrats called an egregious attempt to redraw districts in favor of Republican candidates, a plan that President Trump himself had urged on. Republican colleagues called for the arrest of the absent lawmakers, but the Democrats held firm, determined to block what they see as an assault on fair representation.
Governor Greg Abbott of Texas didn’t back down. He threatened to go even further, proposing to increase the number of Republican districts or even eliminate entire Democratic districts. But as Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, explained to New York Magazine, there are both political and legal limits to how far such gerrymandering can go. “At some point, you divide up things so much that you put your own Republican candidates at risk because if things shift a little bit and there’s only a small margin, then all those seats could shift to Democrats. So there are some political limits.”
Legal boundaries, too, remain—at least for now. The main federal protections against redistricting abuses are Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters, and the constitutional requirement that districts have equal populations. However, these safeguards are themselves under threat, as the Supreme Court prepares to rehear Louisiana v. Callais this fall. The case could further limit—or even eliminate—the protections of Section 2, raising the stakes for minority representation across the country. “There’s a risk,” Hasen warned, noting that several justices have signaled a willingness to treat Section 2 as unconstitutional or to read it very narrowly. If the Court weakens or does away with Section 2, “we would see much whiter legislative bodies, including Congress, if the Court got rid of Section Two.”
Meanwhile, the redistricting battle is not confined to the South. In response to Texas’s aggressive moves, Democratic leaders in California and New York have vowed to redraw their own congressional maps. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has even floated the idea of suspending the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission to ensure Democrats can maximize their advantage. In California, similar discussions center on making changes just for the next three congressional elections, through the next census. As Hasen pointed out, “when it comes to Congress, you can’t assess the fairness of the map looking just at what your own state is doing because what each state does has an effect on the national balance of power in Congress.”
This tit-for-tat approach has drawn concern from groups like Common Cause, which were instrumental in establishing independent redistricting commissions. Yet even they acknowledge the reality that, with Republicans using every available tool to maximize partisan advantage in states without commissions, Democrats may feel compelled to do the same for the sake of national balance. Still, Hasen emphasized, “I don’t read it as a general rejection of independent commissions. I think it’s a recognition of the reality that, when it comes to drawing lines for Congress, what any single state does has national implications.”
Congress, for its part, has the constitutional authority to regulate redistricting under Article One, Section Four, and the 14th and 15th Amendments. It could, in theory, require every state to use independent commissions, appoint its own commission, or impose statutory limits on partisan gerrymandering. Yet, as Hasen noted, “there’s no reason to think that Congress will do that now,” given the current political makeup and the inability of Democrats to overcome the Senate filibuster when they last controlled the chamber. During their last majority, Democrats did pass a bill in the House to limit partisan gerrymandering, but it stalled in the Senate.
While the redistricting wars rage, another, quieter battle is brewing in Washington: the race to prepare for a potential Supreme Court vacancy. According to TIME, White House officials and a close circle of conservative lawyers are already circulating shortlists of judges who could step into the shoes of Justices Samuel Alito, 75, or Clarence Thomas, 77, both stalwart conservatives. The goal is clear: find a nominee “in the mold of Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late Scalia,” as one White House official put it—someone who will reliably support the conservative wing of the Court and back an expansive view of presidential power.
Senate Republicans, who currently control the chamber, are poised to facilitate the confirmation of Trump’s nominee, should a vacancy arise. The White House is keen to avoid the high drama of Brett Kavanaugh’s 2018 hearings, which were marred by allegations of sexual assault and intense partisan conflict. Key figures involved in the vetting process include Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House Counsel David Warrington, and Deputy White House Counsel Steve Kenny. Mike Davis, a conservative lawyer and founder of the Article III Project, has also submitted a list of “bold and fearless” nominees, though he declined to share the names publicly.
Among the current frontrunners are Andrew Oldham, a 5th Circuit judge in Texas who previously clerked for Justice Alito, and Neomi Rao, a D.C. Circuit judge who clerked for Justice Thomas and would become the first Asian-American and only the seventh woman to serve on the Supreme Court if appointed. Other potential contenders include Aileen Cannon, James Ho, Raymond M. Kethledge, and Amul R. Thapar. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank known for its influence on judicial nominations, is also expected to play a role, with vice president John Malcolm touting several circuit court judges and even Senator Mike Lee of Utah as strong options.
The stakes are high. Trump has already left an indelible mark on the Court, appointing three justices during his first term and solidifying a conservative majority that has upended decades of precedent, most notably by overturning Roe v. Wade. In recent months, the Court has further empowered the executive branch, limiting judges’ ability to block Trump’s policies and clearing the way for controversial immigration actions. As Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare, observed, “I assume the competition here would be to have shown greatest loyalty to Trump. I think one would worry that this person would be guided by loyalty rather than guided by something like principle.”
With redistricting fights escalating across the country and the Supreme Court’s future hanging in the balance, America’s democracy finds itself at a crossroads. The decisions made in state capitals and the White House over the coming months will shape not only the next election but the very rules by which the nation governs itself.
