A new Supreme Court gerrymandering case is nightmare fuel for Democrats
Vox
February 19, 2026
AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary
A New York judge's controversial decision in *Williams v. Board of Elections* has sparked concerns among Democrats, as it could provide the Supreme Court’s Republican majority with a vehicle to dismantle protections against gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act. The case centers on Judge Jeffrey Pearlman’s ruling that a congressional district in Staten Island and southern Brooklyn must be redrawn due to New York’s constitutional provisions mirroring federal voting rights laws. This decision, which leans more aggressively than federal interpretations of racial gerrymandering, could set a dangerous precedent.
The *Williams* case intersects with the broader legal battle over *Gingles v. Thornburg*, a 1986 Supreme Court precedent that requires states to create districts ensuring minority representation in cases of racial segregation and polarization. Red states have long opposed this rule, as it often forces them to draw districts favoring Democrats. The Supreme Court is expected to overturn *Gingles* in the upcoming term’s *Louisiana v. Callais* case, but its ruling likely won’t come until after the 2026 midterm elections. However, *Williams* has reached the high court on its “shadow docket,” a fast-track process that could allow the justices to act sooner.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, whose district is at the center of the case, argues that Pearlman’s interpretation of New York’s constitution exceeds federal standards and threatens state control over election laws. She also invokes the discredited “Independent State Legislature” theory, which would grant the Supreme Court sweeping authority over federal elections. If adopted, this could severely undermine states’ ability to manage their own voting procedures.
Democrats fear that
Verticals
politicsnews
Originally published on Vox on 2/19/2026