The U.S. Supreme Court faces a crucial decision on whether racial gerrymandering is permissible, following a controversial case involving Texas’ redistricting efforts. Governor Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans attempted to secure an additional five congressional seats through a rare mid-cycle redistricting, allegedly influenced by former President Donald Trump. This move has been deemed unconstitutional and should be overturned.

This was the conclusion reached by Federal Judge Jeffrey Brown, appointed by Trump, in a decision by a three-judge panel. Judge Brown highlighted that the Justice Department, under Trump’s influence, effectively directed Texas to redraw its maps, removing several minority-majority districts. This action has left a clear indication that the redistricting was not just partisan, but also racially motivated.

The distinction between partisan and racial gerrymandering is critical. While the Supreme Court has controversially allowed partisan redistricting, it has consistently rejected efforts to disenfranchise voters based on race.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is appealing Judge Brown’s decision to the Supreme Court, and briefs from the civil rights groups challenging Abbott’s map are due imminently.

Texas aims to convince the Supreme Court that although Abbott’s map is partisan, it is not racially biased—a point Judge Brown has already disputed. If the Supreme Court upholds Brown’s ruling, the Texas GOP’s strategy, reportedly initiated by Trump, will be thwarted.

This case represents a broader issue affecting several states that have followed Texas’ example in a bid to strengthen Republican control in Congress. This unprecedented mid-cycle redistricting battle has prompted Democratic states to respond similarly, creating a detrimental precedent that challenges the fundamental principles of electoral democracy in the U.S.

As we’ve said before, all of this maneuvering is predicated on the idea that state Republicans are going to be able to create the safe districts that they want, but is that a guarantee? If they’re spending their time openly spitting in the face of their own voters and chipping away at American democracy instead of solving the real issues that affect their constituents, perhaps they will ultimately lose those voters, no matter precisely they try to draw their districts.

Do GOP legislators really want to take that gamble while pushing Democrats to establish their own safer blue districts in states like California ahead of a midterm that promises to be a Democratic wave election? We know that the MAGA movement seems to have no compunctions about cheating and targeting our democratic system, but even from a purely strategic standpoint, this does not seem like a great idea at a moment when Trump’s approval ratings have plunged to record lows.

It would be better for everyone to abandon these plans altogether. Brown ordered Texas to return to its 2021 maps, and every other state should do the same; wait until the 2030 census to revisit this.

Not that the status quo now is ideal. The Supreme Court erred in signing off on blatant partisan gerrymandering, whether done following the normal decennial census schedule or off cycle, which we are seeing now.

The ability to engage in openly partisan gerrymandering still gives too much leeway to state elected officials to select their own voters as opposed to the other way around. We hope that the court will realize its foibles and reconsider that question.