WILL THE MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING WARS CONTINUE UNABATED INTO 2030?
The amendment placed compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) at the top of the hierarchy of standards that the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) is to follow in drawing maps. The Callais opinion significantly weakens Section 2 of the VRA. It brings into question, under certain circumstances, the constitutionality of race-based majority-minority districts.
After requiring districts to be contiguous, the next major standard for the ICRC to follow in drawing districts boundaries is the undefined standard of “community of interest.” Election guru Mark Grebner calls this standard a “will-o-the- wisp,” meaning it is so elusive that it can be whatever the Commission wants it to be.
Unlike the Apol standards, compactness and following political subdivision boundaries are the lowest in the hierarchy of standards found in the VNP amendment.
The plaintiffs will claim Callais presumes race-based majority-minority districts are subject to strict scrutiny and are likely unconstitutional. That would be a misreading of Callais, says Bob LaBrant, a retired attorney who monitors map-drawing closely. Yes, serpentine districts that ignore traditional redistricting standards will be subject to strict scrutiny, he says, but being a majority-minority district by itself does not.
Majority-minority districts were first recognized as a part of the Apol standards used by the Michigan Supreme Court in the state legislative districts they ordered into effect in 1983 and again in 1992. Back then, the question was: If you could create a majority-minority district, was it required? The answer was no. “Apol” refers to former state Elections Director Bernard Apol, who established the standards back in the post-1980 reapportionment process.
The Apol standards emphasized keeping political subdivisions intact. Districts that were serpentine in shape, breaking county, city and township boundaries violated the Apol standards.
With Michigan expected to lose another Congressional district following the 2030 census, the delegation size is expected to be reduced to 12 for the 2032 election. Currently, the Michigan Congressional district map has two majority-minority districts. Ironically, neither member of Congress from those districts is an African-American. In 2032, the map will likely have zero majority-minority districts.
Michigan Democrats back in the 1972 redistricting were not constrained by the need to follow political subdivision boundaries or the need to draw majority-minority districts. Their 1972 redistricting plans submitted to the Michigan Supreme Court were drawn solely to have equal population between districts. The Hatcher-Kleiner plan was adopted by a sharply divided Michigan Supreme Court in 1972. Democrats during the rest of the decade enjoyed solid majorities in both the state House and the state Senate.
Expect a legal challenge following the 2026 elections as a result of Callais to the Congressional and state legislative districts adopted by the ICRC earlier this decade.
One consequence of filing of a lawsuit is that the current 13 members of the ICRC will once again start drawing a paycheck. The VNP amendment requires that each redistricting commissioner be paid approximately 25% of the salary paid to the Governor during the pendency of litigation challenging the present ICRC plan.
Republicans nationally are currently crowing about the 6-3 ruling in Callais, which struck down a second majority-minority district drawn in a Louisiana Congressional map. Yes, Republicans may pick up a few seats across some of the southern states through litigation or, most likely, state legislative action.
However, without the internal constraints of drawing majority-minority districts for their base, Democrats may feel free to crack minority populations in urban cities and spread those minority populations out into the suburbs and rural areas of California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York affecting the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives. For example, if we look at Congressional districts in Illinois, the serpentine design of those districts, especially in Chicago, makes the proposed second majority-minority district in Louisiana (declared unconstitutional) look tame by comparison.
In Michigan, the VRA, majority-minority districts, and the Apol standards led Republicans out of the political wilderness of the 1970s and 1980s. The GOP may now be celebrating the latest SCOTUS decision on voting rights, while Democrats are decrying it. However, there is always the Law of Unintended Consequences — the Supremes’ edict may help Republicans in the South, but here in Michigan it may be a different story depending on what the ICRC does with it.
****************************************************
Redistricting to eliminate majority-minority districts may not be all that significant in the future:
From Mediaite:
‘CNN’s Harry Enten Finds Trump’s GOP Is Making ‘Generational Gains’ With Black Americans’
By Jennifer Bowers Bahney – April 30, 2026
“CNN data chief Harry Enten reported Thursday that President Donald Trump’s Republican Party is making gains with Black Americans, something not seen in a generation:
“I think what we’re seeing right now in the numbers is President Trump and the Republican Party are chipping away at the long-term advantage that Democrats have had with Black voters, with African Americans,” Enten said. “You can see it right here. Look, Trump’s approval among African Americans at this point in term one, he was at 12%. You know, he’s been losing ground with a lot of groups. He’s gaining — he’s gaining ground with African-Americans. He’s up to 16% at this point.”
Look at all the big anti-Trump protests and you can count the African-Americans present on one hand. The hard core Democratic base is now AWFLs and those, mostly unmarried, females will be the basis of future gerrymanders.
Nice article, Bill.
First of all, I do not see the ICRC coming back until after 2030. It’s possible that an inferior court judge, or judges, might like to do that, but I have no idea what Johnny and the Supremes will do as the next census would be just around the corner. I don’t see the legislature voting for it and absent a court order to redo it, the rationale for them coming back is not there. But then again, I would not put it past a member of the ICRC to file suit. If somehow or someway they are called back, we can rest assured that some members of the current ICRC will demand a pay hike. Again. And still. Maybe the one who filed the suit.
I agree with you that section 2 of the VRA has been hammered by SCOTUS.
As for “community of interest” standard, the folks behind VNP deliberately made it vague and amorphous to enable redistricting/gerrymandering along designed demographic patterns to create a dominate ideological background for the redrawn district. Much like the Illinois Democrats did when they redistricted the state using the American Community Survey (the Census Bureau had not finished their work on time) to gerrymander GOP voters into three districts instead of the six they had as a result of the 2010 census. We see this in other states like California, New York, Virginia (assuming their Supremes let them get away with it), Texas and others. So yes, next time ‘round we can see that attempted when redistricting occurs. Here in Michigan, that depends on who is on the ICRC, and how many partisans now identify as “independent” to tilt the panel’s make up. Like they did in California, state Senator McMorrow’s apparent favorite state.
On the other hand, I would argue (and would have argued vigorously if I had been selected to serve on the ICRC) that the real “community of interest” consists of the folks who live near you who breathe the same air, drive on the same roads, attend the same churches, shop in the same stores and whose children go to the same schools. Weirdly enough, my line of thought would be more compatible with the Apol standards.
Regardless, we can probably assume that Michigan’s Supremes will get involved, and given its current membership, one can wonder whether Justice Zahra will channel his inner Justice Black who in dissent wrote:
“FOR A COURT WITH A MIGHTY POOR TRACK RECORD OF TIMELY DECISION, MADE FROM AND AFTER SUBMISSION OF CALENDAR CAUSES AND ORIGINAL ACTIONS, I MUST SAY THAT THE FOREGOING ORDER EXHIBITS THE DAZZLING SPEED OF A REGULARLY SLOW BUT LATELY DEXEDRINE-DOPED RACE-HORSE. TOO, THE ORDER REMINDS POIGNANTLY OF OUR CORRESPONDING EXPERIENCE IN 1964, REFERRING TO MAJORITY SUSPENSION FOR STATED GOOD REASON OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER PARAGRAPH 7 OF SECTION 6 OF THE LEGISLATIVE ARTICLE; ALL HIGHLIGHTED BY JUSTICE ADAMS’ NOW IMMORTALIZED OBSERVATION[*] THAT HE DID NOT “CONCEIVE IT TO BE THE PROPER DUTY OR FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO ATTEMPT TO OUTRUN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.” I REJOIN IN PARAPHRASE THAT IT IS NOT IN THIS YEAR 1972 THE PROPER DUTY OR FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO ATTEMPT TO OUTRUN, AND THEREBY EVADE, ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF MENTIONED SECTION 6, PARTISAN PRESSURES TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.”
Anyway, we can expect the ongoing redistricting of Michigan to be the source of more fodder for future TBRs.
N.B. I included that quote by Justice Black in honor of the Derby weekend.
I am in the Michigan 13th House District that had been initially redrawn to include Detroit AND Warren AND Roseville in its boundaries.
Not much “community of interest” there! When Detroit was removed in another redrawing created by the federal court ruling – the GOP nominee’s (Ron Singer) election totals soared to 46% in 2024 against Dem incumbent Mai Xiong.
Now Open Carry, Inc. activist Casey Armitage is running for the Republican nomination in the district and the GOP thinks she can beat Mai Xiong.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on reapportionment and voting district modifications in our state of Michigan, Bill. Your article and comments from readers highlight a part of the history of development of redistricting and “gerrymandering” in Michigan that should be understood and considered when interested Michiganders of all political and demographic stripes start trying to figure out “where do we go from here?” This will likely also lead to political strategists continuing to assess how to focus their efforts on patisan coalition building and the platform issues that may help the parties get to that much desired “51% needed in most political contests.
I myself am concerned and perhaps disappointed about the impact of this Roberts SCOTUS decision written ny Justice Alito on the political futures of minorities in Michigan politics – especially potential adverse impacts on Black politicians…
I will share it with some of my Facebook followers and politically concerned FB friends.
– Howard
Pardon the cynicism. Forgotten in the VNP districts was the violation of any semblance of community of interest in the districts that crossed 8-mile Rd in Oakland and Macomb Counites (which the court upset), but also in the Lansing area and Grand Rapids areas. Republicans did not have the funds to mount the challenge when plaintiffs in both of those areas could not proceed – one being part of the MI Supreme Court’s ruling against a challenge there that would have raised a res judicata barrier in federal court and the other moved away. Joining urban Lansing and East Lansing with rural areas north of each had NO community of interest, other than producing Democrat districts by siphoning off rural voters that would have (as in prior redistrictings) created a Republican district. Reminds me of Dem congressional plan in 1982 that split Lansing in two – with west half joined to Kalamazoo for a Dem district [Wolpe] and the east half with Pontiac to form another Dem district [Carr]. Otherwise, I agree that the SCOTUS decision undermines historic civil rights efforts and is likely to reduce the number of minority members of Congress.