While the U.S. Supreme Court weighs possible sweeping changes to the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which could drastically reshape the U.S. House of Representatives, the high court is evidently allowing states to forge ahead with their redistricting arms race. In a brief, unsigned order Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge against California Democrats’ partisan redistricting efforts.

When California’s Democrat-controlled state legislature approved mid-decade redistricting last year, potentially eliminating up to five GOP-held seats in the House, a coalition of state Republicans filed a lawsuit, charging the Democrats with violating the Fourteenth Amendment and gerrymandering on the basis of race. When a lower court allowed the Democrat-crafted maps to stand, the Republicans appealed to the Supreme Court, late last month, where their appeal was shot down. “Even when a State claims that it is engaged in partisan rather than racial gerrymandering, it may not use race as a ‘proxy’ for politics. … Regrettably, California has done precisely that,” the Republicans argued. “If left uncorrected, this pernicious and unconstitutional use of race will irreparably harm Applicants and the public.”

In December, the Supreme Court shot down a similar challenge brought against new congressional maps in Texas. The Republican-made maps are expected to shift five House seats from Democrats to Republicans, prompting Democrats to accuse the state legislature of racial gerrymandering, where Texas Republicans said that they were simply redistricting along “partisan” lines, the same argument employed by California’s Democrats.

The sparring comes as the Supreme Court is weighing its decision in a case centered on Section 2 of the VRA, which bars the drawing of congressional maps along racial lines. The case originated in Louisiana, where a new set of congressional district maps was redrawn in order not to racially discriminate against racial minorities. A second challenge, however, charged that in redrawing districts so as not to discriminate against minority groups, the state legislature had actually discriminated against white voters.

In Virginia, the redistricting battle is still playing out at the state level. Chief Judge Jack Hurley of Virginia’s Tazewell Circuit Court determined last week that a constitutional amendment advanced by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly creating new congressional district maps and eliminating GOP-held seats is illegal, both violating the General Assembly’s own rules and leapfrogging constitutionally-mandated timelines for approving such measures. The case was then appealed to Virginia’s Court of Appeals, which promptly passed the matter on to the Virginia Supreme Court.

“The Court of Appeals submits that these appeals present questions ‘of such imperative public importance as to justify the deviation from normal appellate practice and to require prompt decision in the Supreme Court,’” the appellate court wrote in a filing Wednesday. “Accordingly, the Court of Appeals respectfully requests that the Supreme Court certify the appeals for review.”

Old Dominion Democrats had originally set a date of April 21 for voters to decide on the proposed constitutional amendment, which would require the state’s 45-day early voting period to begin in early March. Any delay in the state Supreme Court’s review could derail Democrats’ plans to use the maps for the 2026 midterm elections. Newly-minted Attorney General Jay Jones (D) moved to intervene in the case on Tuesday, claiming that Virginia Republicans’ “claims directly implicate the Virginia Constitution, the structure of state government, and the legitimacy of the constitutional amendment and redistricting processes, thereby triggering the Commonwealth’s sovereign interests” and necessitating the attorney general’s involvement.

Additionally, while Democrats initially suggested that new maps would be available for public review by the end of January, the state’s Senate and House of Delegates evidently cannot agree on where the borders for new congressional districts should lie. “We have a 10-1 map that has secured the 21 votes needed to pass in the Senate,” Senate President Pro Tempore Louise Lucas (D) said in a social media post, touting a set of maps that would leave Republicans with only one seat representing Virginia in the House. “Other proposals do not have the votes to pass. We have waited to release these maps in order to allow time for feedback — not time for games.”

Maryland Democrats are also moving quickly to strip the GOP of the sole House seat it holds representing the Old Line State. On Monday, the Maryland House of Delegates voted nearly along party lines to approve new congressional maps that would likely put all eight of Maryland’s House seats in Democrats’ hands. Delegate Sheree Sample-Hughes was the only Democrat to join all 36 Republican delegates in opposing the measure.

However, Maryland’s Senate Democrats have openly warned against the redistricting effort. Senate President Bill Ferguson (D) noted that Maryland’s current congressional district lines, which give Democrats seven seats in the House, have never been judged by the Maryland Supreme Court, while new maps would certainly trigger a legal challenge and may result in Democrats holding fewer House seats.

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter quipped, “The mid-decade redistricting war was always going to end up in the courts.” He explained, “This Supreme Court seems highly deferential toward treading lightly on the right of states to draw districts, so it’s no surprise they would allow California’s new maps to stand. It’s another question altogether whether the Virginia Supreme Court will uphold the recent decision out of the Tazewell County court…”

Carpenter added, “And, of course, we await a decision from SCOTUS on the challenge to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which would pave the way for several red states to also draw new maps. I suspect we will have a few more rounds to go in the redistricting war before it’s all said and done.”