Supreme Court Allows Louisiana and Alabama to Change Congressional Maps Before 2026 Midterms

The Supreme Court has frequently told lower courts not to interfere in election matters once voting processes are underway. The court now faces accusations of doing exactly that through recent rulings in redistricting cases that favor Republican-drawn maps.

The court's decision in a Louisiana case, which weakened application of the Voting Rights Act, has prompted Republican-led states to advance new congressional maps. The rulings carry national implications ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that will decide control of the House.

The Supreme Court released its Louisiana ruling less than three weeks before that state's congressional primary. The court had delayed action on the case for more than a year before issuing the decision. It then granted special requests from Louisiana and Alabama that expedited the process and allowed new maps eliminating majority-Black districts previously held by Democrats.

In Louisiana, some ballots had already been returned when officials announced that House elections originally set for May 16 would be suspended. Alabama, whose primaries had been scheduled for May 19, will now hold them in August for the affected districts.

Other states could follow with similar changes. The court, which holds a 6-3 conservative majority, did not explain its reasoning in either the Louisiana or Alabama decisions and did not reference the Purcell principle. That principle, drawn from a 2006 case, generally urges courts to avoid changing election rules close to voting to prevent voter confusion.

>"Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. " — Supreme Court opinion (NBC News) A recent NBC News poll found confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low.

The court has also faced criticism for rulings that favored the Trump administration. Liberal critics have questioned whether the court applies standards evenly, pointing to its earlier decisions that criticized lower courts for altering election rules late in the process.

One election law expert said the Purcell principle does not apply when the Supreme Court lifts an existing injunction, as it did in the Alabama case. The expert noted that the court's recent decisions have favored Republicans, which has provided fuel for its critics, but added that the court would face scrutiny no matter which way it ruled.

Another election law expert said that in more recent cases the Purcell principle has taken on a broader and more vague meaning that courts simply should not interfere in approaching elections. The expert observed that the court has applied the principle unevenly, citing a December decision that allowed Texas to use a new map blocked by a lower court even though primaries were still months away.

The upshot, according to that expert, is that the Purcell principle no longer functions as a consistent rule.