The Supreme Court is allowing California to use its new congressional map for this year’s midterm election, clearing the way for the state’s gerrymandered districts as Democrats and Republicans continue their fight for control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The state’s voters approved the redistricting plan last year as a Democratic counterresponse to Texas’ new GOP-friendly map, which President Trump pushed for to help Republicans hold on to their narrow majority in the House.
And in an unsigned order released Wednesday, the high court’s majority denied an emergency request by the California’s Republican Party to block the redistricting plan. The state’s GOP argued that the map violated the U.S. Constitution because its creation was mainly driven by race, not partisan politics. A lower federal court rejected that claim.



Aren’t the districts the same?
I don’t think the congressional districts are actually relevant to the electoral college, but the # of electoral votes is based partly on how many congressional representatives the state has, which is based on the state’s population.
Most states award electoral votes solely based on the popular vote of that state. So if 5,000,001 people vote Democrat in California and 5,000,000 vote Republican, all of California’s electoral votes go to the Democrat.
Many people would like to see gerrymandering ended, but I don’t think many people want to see congressional districts eliminated entirely. Congressional districts ensure that different parts of the state are represented in congress. For example, in a state like Massachusetts if the congressional districts were eliminated, then probably all of the representatives would hail from the Boston area which is the most densely populated.
In fact, one way that the negative impacts of the electoral college could be partially eliminated is by using the congressional districts as electoral districts, as described here: Congressional Districts as Electoral Districts
This would result in more states awarding partial electoral votes, but would have downsides such as allowing gerrymandering to influence the presidential election instead of just the congressional elections, and it would still technically be possible for someone to win in the electoral college but not in the popular vote.
The best way to eliminate the electoral college in my opinion is for more states to award electoral votes proportionally. So in the California example above, half the electoral votes would go to the Democrat and half to the Republican.
I understand. Thank you very much for the explanation.