WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court did three things on Tuesday, and all three had to do with politics.

More precisely, they all had to do with the politicization of the rules of voting, redistricting and representation -- and how state and national laws, and the U.S. Constitution, keep it all in check. Or don't.

The main event was Evenwel v. Abbott , a high-profile case that threatens to change the rules for who gets to put people in power at the state level -- much to the likely detriment of Latinos, immigrants, families with children and even prisoners.

But before that, a unanimous court decided Shapiro v. McManus , an under-the-radar case dealing precisely with the role of federal courts in deciding these kinds of disputes. In a brief, eight-page ruling , Justice Antonin Scalia and his colleagues essentially made it easier for courts to entertain these cases.

Then came the hearing in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission , the second order of the day on Tuesday. This case hasn't received nearly as much media attention as Evenwel, but it is just as politically charged.