As we sort through the many implications of the horrific Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais, there’s one that could greatly affect Democratic election strategies in 2026 and for years to come, as I explained at New York:

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s bombshell decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which basically eliminated the Voting Rights Act as a restraint on partisan gerrymandering, political observers mostly focused on its immediate impact on the tense 2026 midterm elections, with Republican control of the U.S. House hanging by a thread. But it’s also clear Samuel Alito’s handiwork in green-lighting (and even encouraging) Republican efforts to wipe out majority-Black Democratic districts will have a profound effect over the next few years on minority representation in Congress. That’s particularly true in the Deep South, given its robust Black populations and its lily-white Republican governors and legislatures.

But there’s an even more fundamental political change in store for us triggered by both Callais and the precedent set by Donald Trump and his allies and opponents in the current election cycle. Callais eliminated the most important federal judicial obstacle to partisan gerrymandering, and politicians (first Trump and his state-level ground troops, followed by Democrats fighting back) swept away past informal inhibitions against mid-decade redistricting. Now, suddenly, states can monkey around with congressional lines at will, or certainly every two years, so long as their own laws permit it. And it is extremely likely that the partisan gerrymandering arms race will very quickly convince states with independent or nonpartisan redistricting systems to abandon them, just as California and Virginia persuaded their voters to jettison such independent commissions this cycle — in theory temporarily, but as a practical matter for as long as it’s politically necessary.

Soon we will probably be living in a world where the two parties go back and forth, state by state, gerrymandering districts as effectively as possible, whenever and wherever they can. But in every state except two, the power to gerrymander depends on holding a governing trifecta: control of the governorship and both legislative chambers. The post-Callais world, then, will make winning and holding these trifectas a much bigger goal for the national political parties given the implications for control of Congress.

At present, 39 states are under trifecta control of one of the parties — 23 held by Republicans and 16 by Democrats. Six states (Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) have only one U.S. House seat and are thus not subject to congressional gerrymandering. But in the other 44, all but a few are going to be vulnerable now and then to a potential “flip” of control either of a legislative chamber or of the governorship. If you doubt that, consider the situation in the largest state, California, with its 52 U.S. House districts: There is a very real possibility that the Golden State will have a Republican governor next year, in a position to block any further Democratic gerrymanders of congressional or state legislative maps.

There are, moreover, six states where one party or the other (according to their own state legislative campaign committees) is in a position to flip or maintain control of the legislature in November: Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These states together hold 57 U.S. House seats. The potential harvest of House seats from playing heavily in key gubernatorial or state legislative races is immense, as national-party strategists and donors are doubtless beginning to understand. Since regular gerrymandering will likely reduce the number of good old-fashioned U.S. House battleground districts (already being reduced by partisan polarization), winning a House majority by winning state governments first could soon become a strategy of choice, or at least a big part of the equation. It’s unlikely that in wrecking the Voting Rights Act Justice Alito planned to become the fairy godfather of state political parties. But that could be part of his legacy, since he’s already blessed the states with control over abortion policy in his opinion reversing Roe v. Wade.