Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva/Supreme Court Could Have a Major Impact
By Andrew Stanton
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The U.S. Supreme Court could have a major impact on the 2026 midterm elections as it considers three cases that could change voting rights or election laws.
Why It Matters
Democrats are hoping to retake control of the House and Senate in 2026, as the party in the White House historically loses seats during the midterms—and polls have Democrats leading the generic ballot.
Read More on Politics
But the Supreme Court is considering several cases that could change the legal playbook on a number of areas of election law for the midterms and beyond.
What To Know
There are three cases the Supreme Court is set to rule on, including Louisiana v. Callais, in which a group of white voters sued Louisiana over its current congressional map, which has two majority-Black districts. They argue the map constitutes a racial gerrymander that dilutes the power of white voters.
...
If a majority of justices on the nation's highest court agree with them, the state's map could return to a similar configuration it had before 2024, when the state had only one majority-Black district around New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
However, some voting rights activists are concerned that the court could issue a broader ruling that would overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial gerrymandering. If the court were to overturn that section more broadly, other Republican-led states could also redraw their congressional lines to erase majority-Black districts that reliably vote for Democrats.
Richard Briffault, a law professor at Columbia University, told Newsweek that if the decision in this case comes early—and the court overturns Section 2—that could give states enough time to redraw their maps. If they don't give a ruling by the spring, however, it would likely be too late to change redistricting plans for the midterms.
"The case could be narrowly focused on just districts in Louisiana or have broader significance in terms of the meaning and enforceability of the Voting Rights Act," he said. "At the very least, there is a serious chance it would lead to undoing of the current plan in Louisiana. Beyond that, depending on what court says, it could lead to more challenges to current districting plans in other states."
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek that the Supreme Court has been "steadily chipping away" at the Voting Rights Act, and that the outcome of the ruling could "dramatically change the congressional map for the midterms."
Typically, the Supreme Court has ruled that "anything goes" when it comes to gerrymandering, as long as race is not the predominant reason, Rahmani said, noting that the mid-decade redistricting that is taking place in states like Texas and California is not the norm.
"Typically, we'd see this type of gerrymandering after the Census," he said. "Now it's just—the midterms—it's something that historically we haven't seen these types of issues unless it's post-Census. But now it's happening seemingly all the time."
Another key case that could change the outcome of the midterms is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. The case deals with campaign finance and whether limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment.
The case was brought by Vice President JD Vance when he was a senator. They asked the court to revisit a previous ruling on the case as it has "tightened the free speech restrictions on campaign finance regulation."
Rahmani said the court could continue chipping away at its laws regarding campaign finance, and that this could have an effect on the midterm. The court has generally upheld that "money is speech when it comes to elections."
Briffault said he believes that while the court is likely to overturn those restrictions, its impact is unclear as parties have found ways to circumvent restrictions as part of the status quo.
The third case, Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, deals with a lawsuit filed by Representative Mike Bost, an Illinois Republican, over mail-in voting. His case was tossed by a lower-court judge, who ruled that he did not have standing as a candidate. But the court agreed to pick up the case and decide whether that is true.
The justices won't be ruling on his lawsuit itself—just whether or not candidates have standing to file lawsuits to these election laws. If the court sides with him, it will make it easier for candidates to file challenges, Briffault said.
"If the plaintiffs win, it means there may be more challenges to election laws because it will liberalize the rules of standing and make it easier for candidates and parties to bring challenges," he said.
What People Are Saying
Richard Briffault told Newsweek: "Most academics are really focused on the Louisiana case. It has a wide range of possible outcomes in terms of its impact on the Voting Rights Act."
Cecillia Wang, national legal director for the ACLU, in a statement in June: "Before this case ever began, we had already won a hard-fought legal battle, proving that the legislature's initial map, like Louisiana's maps for generations before, illegally diluted Black voters' political power. Thanks to the Supreme Court's order from May 2024, which put the district court's injunction on hold, the fair and legal map the Louisiana Legislature enacted in response to our litigation remains in place while the case continues. We will be back next term to once again defend the new map and the representation Black voters deserve."
The National Republican Senatorial Committee, in its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court: "Before a political party speaks in support of its candidate, it would naturally seek to get the candidate's input. And for nearly the first 200 years of our Nation's history, a party was free to do so. Yet today, Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them. That is the campaign 'equivalent of prohibiting communication between a coach and quarterback late in a tied game.'"
What Happens Next
Political candidates are likely to spend the next 13 1/2 months campaigning and making their cases to voters about their positions on key issues in hopes of winning in the midterms.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines