Tipsheet

MS NOW Melts Down After SCOTUS Hands Texas Redistricting Win

Amy Curtis
Amy Curtis  |  December 05, 2025 8:15 AM

In a blow to Gavin Newsom and Democrats everywhere, the Supreme Court last night upheld Texas' new redistricting map, which would likely give Republicans more House seats in the 2026 midterms. The decision was 6-3, with the Court's liberal Justices dissenting.

Here's some of what our Scott McClallen wrote about the ruling:

The 20-page ruling said that the District Court had erred when it blocked the new map. 

“Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors," the nation's top court wrote. "First, the District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature.”

The ruling said that lower federal courts shouldn't ordinarily alter election rules before an election. 

"The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections," the ruling said.

Of course, we wonder how this bodes for legal challenges to the California redistricting map, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

The panelists on MS NOW were not happy with the ruling, of course, and 

"Because Texas said we drew it for political reasons, not race, they're using political as the cover over race, and so if this becomes the norm that means any state in the country, particularly states in the south with a history of discrimination can claim that they are doing things with their state maps under the guise of partisan and political, when they're really using race," said Symone Sanders Townsend.

"The Supreme Court put itself in the position of the district court. It should not have done so. It is not its role. And they basically slapped the district court," said Michael Steele. "The other thing that I find frustrating is essentially, I'm looking at the disintegration of civil rights at the hands of a party and a political philosophy that once existed within that party that elevated those civil rights."

Of course, it is the role of the Supreme Court to correct unfair district court rulings.

And as Darkins asked, would MS NOW apply this same logic to California's maps?

The answer, of course, is no.

Democrats can't legislate, so they govern from the bench.

They're fine with (D)isenfranchising Republican voters. That's (D)ifferent.

All the time.