The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued two major election law rulings that are likely to help Republicans in the midterm elections this November, experts say.
The rulings, which affect campaign spending limits and redistricting, could affect control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Republicans, including one independent who aligns with the GOP, now control 219 of the House seats; Democrats control 212. There are four vacancies.
The case focused on Louisiana’s decision to add a majority-black district after a lower court said omitting the district would violate nondiscrimination provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act.
That law prohibits race-based discrimination in voting practices, but the high court held that lower courts had been misapplying the law by requiring states “to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”
After the Callais decision was announced, several Republican-led state legislatures—Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida—changed the lines of their congressional districts.
At the same time, post-Callais redistricting efforts have stalled so far in the Georgia, South Carolina, and Mississippi legislatures.
Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said the benefits the GOP will gain in the upcoming midterms will be modest, though Republicans may gain more seats in subsequent elections.
Republicans will likely gain three seats in the midterms because of Callais—one in each of Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee—Olsen told The Epoch Times.
Although some have attributed the possible gain of four GOP seats in Florida to that ruling, the redistricting process was underway in that state before Callais was issued, said Olsen, who drew congressional maps in California in the 1980s.
Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, said the Callais decision came too late in 2026 for many Republican-led states to take advantage of it before November.
Moreover, the effect of any new maps may be blunted because “every single redistricting plan will be attacked in the courts.”
Those challenging the new map, even if they are aware that they may eventually lose their cases, want to strategically delay the plans through litigation “so that it’s too late to put in the new districts for the midterm elections,” von Spakovsky told The Epoch Times.
Campaign Spending Limits
In National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Supreme Court on June 30 struck down federal limits restricting political parties from coordinating spending with candidates.
Limits on spending coordinated between party committees and candidates were created on the theory that their absence encourages corruption and allows wealthy donors to have outsized influence.
In a so-called quid pro quo—Latin for “this for that”—a donor might give something of value in return for a specific favor or action from a politician, such as a vote in favor of legislation the donor favors.
Congress enacted the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1972 to limit spending and fundraising in campaigns for federal political office, amending it in 1974 to limit how much political party committees may accept and spend to influence a federal election.
The majority said that the “constitutional text, history, and precedent establish that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.”
Olsen said the invalidation of the law preventing coordinated expenditures will likely benefit Republican candidates because it will increase their access to television advertising.
“Coordinated expenditures qualify campaigns for ‘candidate rates’ for television advertising,” he said.
Federal law provides that in the 45 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, broadcasters must charge legally qualified candidates no more than the lowest rate offered to their most favored customers.
In the past few election cycles, Democrats have had an advantage in candidate fundraising, but Republicans have had the upper hand in outside fundraising, which meant that Democrats “have an advantage in television minutes because the candidates can buy it at heavily discounted rates,” Olsen said.
Getting rid of the limits on coordination means that there will be “a substantially greater presence of the Republicans on the airwaves and contested races,” he said.
David Super, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said the ruling would likely help Republicans.
Republicans are likely to have a significant financial advantage in November, in part because they are the incumbent party and receive “many donations from lobbyists and companies wanting favors from them,” he told The Epoch Times.
In addition, “closer coordination will allow the parties to handle all the negative advertising, which many voters dislike, and allow the candidates to appear exclusively positive,” Super said.
Steven J. Allen, a senior fellow at the National Legal and Policy Center, also said the ruling will help Republicans.
Democrats usually benefit from restrictions on campaigns because they control most of the news media, “so they start with a big advantage on public relations—one that Republicans have to spend money to overcome,” Allen said.
It will also benefit national political parties’ committees like the NRSC and DNC “by allowing them to pool strategy, data, and unlimited financial resources alongside their nominees, effectively restoring their power relative to Super PACs.”
Another case, Watson v. Republican National Committee (RNC), could have helped Republicans, but they lost in June.
Republicans challenged a Mississippi law that allows counting of mail-in ballots received within a five-day grace period after Election Day.
The law was enacted in July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide flexibility to voters.
About 30 states accept mailed ballots received after Election Day if they are postmarked on or before Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
A ruling invalidating Mississippi’s Election Day law would have helped Republicans because they “almost always do better among votes cast on the single Election Day, and not as well otherwise,” Allen said.
