The POLITICO Poll, conducted by Public First in the two weeks since the Supreme Court significantly narrowed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, reveals a striking shift in Democratic Party priorities on redistricting. While 54% of people who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 initially say protecting Black voter power is more important than drawing more seats for Democrats, that number flips to a 45% plurality when respondents are given context about the high court ruling and Republican gerrymandering efforts.
Republicans have launched a fresh round of redistricting across the South following the Supreme Court decision, with their stated aim to dismantle majority-minority districts they have long argued are unconstitutional. At least nine states will use new maps this fall, with others weighing last-minute gerrymandering before the midterms and many more debating changes ahead of 2028.
What the Left Is Saying
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.), a Democrat who represents a majority-Hispanic Los Angeles district, acknowledged that Democratic conversations about countering GOP maps "probably will have to" involve carving up majority-minority districts. "It's existential at this point, and this is a larger battle that we're fighting for," she said. The congresswoman added that while she disagrees with certain carve-outs, the Supreme Court ruling in Callais represents an unraveling of democratic protections.
However, some Democratic leaders push back on framing this as a binary choice between electoral success and minority representation. John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said: "As the person that draws the maps and stares at the data, I'm telling you that is not a binary choice." California Assemblymember Mia Bonta, a Black Latina Democrat, argued that Democrats must guarantee they do not forget or disregard Black voters as the party pursues more aggressive gerrymandering strategies. "The Democratic Party has always basically been able to win elections, ensure that we are able to be in power in different states because of Black voters," she said.
What the Right Is Saying
Republicans have long argued that majority-minority districts are unconstitutional, a position now bolstered by the recent Supreme Court ruling that significantly narrowed protections in the Voting Rights Act. The party's redistricting efforts across Southern states aim to dismantle these districts as they seek to maintain control of the House of Representatives.
The GOP strategy reflects a broader argument that district boundaries should not be drawn based on racial composition. Republicans contend that politically neutral maps would produce more competitive elections, though critics note this framing ignores how historical discrimination required targeted protections for minority voters.
What the Numbers Show
Among Harris voters overall: 54% say protecting Black voter power is more important when given no context; 45% plurality say countering GOP efforts takes priority even with reduced majority-minority districts. When those initially supporting minority protection are asked about countering Republicans, they split roughly evenly at 46% favoring more blue seats versus 41% wanting to keep districts intact.
Among Democratic subgroups: Pluralities of Black (42%), Hispanic (45%), and Asian American (48%) voters who voted for Harris say drawing more blue seats is the priority. White Democrats and Harris voters showed lower support, with 39% supporting aggressive counter-gerrymandering, 33% opposing it, and 28% unsure. Sample sizes for racial subgroups carry higher margins of error.
The Bottom Line
The poll reveals a party at an inflection point on redistricting strategy. Many Democrats appear willing to embrace aggressive gerrymandering tactics to win the House, even at the cost of traditional liberal principles around boosting minority electoral power. Whether party leaders can thread the needle between electoral competitiveness and minority representation remains unclear. Both Bisognano's insistence that this is "not a binary choice" and Kamlager-Dove's acknowledgment that it may be "existential" suggest internal debate will continue as 2028 mapmaking approaches.