WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court will take up states’ rights – of both the blue- and red-state variety – in a pair of election-law cases to be heard this week that could have major effects on the future of American politics.

Tiny Vermont, a true blue state, hopes to restore small-town democracy by greatly limiting the role of money in politics. If its new spending caps win before the high court, they could change how campaigns are conducted across the nation.

Meanwhile, Texas, the biggest of the red states, is defending its right to redraw its electoral districts to give its GOP majority more seats in Congress. If its extraordinary mid-decade shift wins in the high court, other states have signaled they will do the same.

The pair of cases will also give strong clues about the court’s newest members, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

In the Vermont case, Republicans say the free-speech principle in the First Amendment is fundamental to American politics, and that any government-enforced limit on campaign spending is unconstitutional.

Three years ago, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the McCain-Feingold Act, which barred big contributions to political parties. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cast a deciding fifth vote to reject the legal challenge led by Republican Senator McConnell of Kentucky.

Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy voted to strike down these contribution limits on First Amendment grounds. If Roberts and Alito agree with them, the court could rule that contribution limits, as well as spending limits, are unconstitutional.

But the Vermont case is driven by liberal reformers who hope the Supreme Court will reconsider its 30-year old ruling in Buckley v. Valeo. Then, the justices set a confusing, two-part rule that has been law ever since. First, they said the government may limit contributions to candidates on the theory that it would look corrupt if a politician took a huge sum from a wealthy donor. However, they also said candidates had a free speech right to spend unlimited sums.

Vermonters said they wanted to turn back the clock to a time when candidates had to listen first to voters, not just to campaign contributors. Their “faith in the integrity of government (had been) profoundly shaken by the effects of large contributions and unfettered campaign spending,” said state Attorney General William Sorrell, who will defend the law in the Supreme Court.

The new law said candidates for the state senate could spend only $4,000 to run for office. Running statewide, candidates for governor would be limited to $300,000. And incumbents could spend only 90% as much as challengers.

In addition, contribution limits were set very low. For example, donors to statewide candidates, like the governor, could give no more than $400 to a candidate.

Lawyers for the Vermont Republican State Committee and the Republican National Committee sued and blocked much of the law from taking effect. They say it is a free-speech violation that threatens open democracy.

Seventeen other states have joined Vermont in arguing for states’ rights. Included are “blue states” such as California, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota.

On Wednesday, the court will hear the Texas case – a challenge to the controversial redistricting that was engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay after Republicans won control of the state legislature in 2003.

Electoral district boundaries are traditionally redrawn after the national census is conducted every 10 years. The idea is to make sure that population shifts are reflected in state legislatures as well as Congress. But Texas Republicans acted in mid-decade.

“This case is fundamentally about democracy,” the Texas solicitor general, R. Ted Cruz, said, defending the move as a matter of fairness.

Democrats had controlled the state for decades, he said, and drew district lines that allowed Democrats to hold a majority of its seats in Congress, even as most of the state’s voters cast ballots for Republicans. After Republicans took solid control of both houses of the state legislature in 2003, Mr. DeLay spurred lawmakers to redraw the congressional districts again so as to knock off six Democratic members of the House.

Eight million Texans were moved to new districts, and the plan worked as the GOP strengthened its narrow majority in Congress.