
How Republicans are trying to redistrict their way to a majority
Texas lawmakers have an unusual plan to redraw their maps early and eke out as many as five more likely Republican seats in the House of Representatives — and California Gov. Gavin Newsom is promising to respond by doing the same thing in California.
To find out more, I asked my colleague Christian Paz, who wrote about these efforts last week. We sat down to chat about his reporting for Vox's daily newsletter, Today, Explained, and our conversation is below. You can also sign up for the newsletter here for more conversations like this.
What are Republicans trying to do ahead of the 2026 midterms?
Ahead of the 2026 midterms, when parties in power tend to lose seats in Congress, there is an expectation that Trump, who has a tiny two-seat majority in the House, could lose that majority, which would effectively render him a lame duck for the second half of his second term. In response, Trump has been pushing for Texas state Republicans to take advantage of the fact that the legislature in Texas controls redistricting and to redraw the maps in Texas in the middle of the decade, when it is not usually the norm.
Republicans could gain about five seats that are less competitive than the current map makes it out to be — essentially dividing up Democratic districts, mixing them with some Republican-leaning voters, and carving out five more seats that presumably Republicans would then win and be able to keep their majority in the House.
Are there other states looking to do this, too?
There are a handful of other states. At the moment, there is redistricting happening in Ohio as a result of court challenges in the past, and the new maps that are being redrawn would render about three more Republican seats out of Ohio. The other state is Missouri, which would render one more Republican seat.
In response, the question has been, Can Democrats do this, too? The reason this is happening is because these are states where 1) Republicans have total control of government, and 2) the legislature still has power over drawing maps, or there are legal quirks requiring redistricting. Democrats are much more limited on this front because of the states that have Democratic trifectas, the majority of them don't give the power to redraw districts to the legislature. They give it to independent commissions or to bipartisan commissions, or their constitutions have stricter bans on redistricting early.
Today, Explained
Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
With that being said, Gavin Newsom is threatening to add more Democratic seats in California. How does he want to make that happen?
His plan is a little vague. A lot of the Democratic response seems to be a form of mutually assured destruction — the main idea here is to say that you're going to do the same thing and hope to scare Republicans out of doing this. And the idea Gavin Newsom has proposed is putting a measure on the ballot in an upcoming election, having a statewide referendum to either approve new maps or permanently change the way that the state does its redistricting.
The idea there is to create five to seven more Democratic seats in California, which seems like a pretty tall order. It's possible that the state is already pretty maxed out.
Can Democrats conceivably wring enough seats out of their redistrictable states to match the GOP?
The other obvious seats that are out there are states like Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, which conceivably could all produce one to two more Democratic seats. There's always New York, too, and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who met with Democratic state lawmakers from Texas last week, has said that he's open to the idea as well.
Republicans seem to be all in for this plan. Democrats aren't so sure. Tell me about that.
The issue here is that Democrats, because they have tended to be the folks who argued against gerrymandering and this kind of politically motivated redistricting, acknowledge that it's not normal to do this. They acknowledge that maybe the rules are changing, but redistricting opens them up to charges of hypocrisy or descending to the same level as Republicans.
But many Democrats are saying, you know, We're running out of options. Democratic voters want us to do something. That's been the rallying cry from the party base to party leadership over the last year, and this is a pretty substantive plan to do that. But then what happens in the next five years? What happens in 10 years? Is this just going to become something that states do whenever they notice that their national party is in danger of losing a majority or losing a political advantage? Does that then diminish trust in the political system as a whole? Does that raise even more questions about accountability and transparency that were the point of trying to have independent redistricting to begin with?
In previous midterms, you've seen much bigger swings than five or even 10 seats, so it's very possible that this shaves the margins for Republicans, but doesn't end up swinging control of the House in 2026, right?
Yes. This could either be another 2018 'blue wave' situation, where even if Republicans redistrict, they would lose the majority anyway. Or it could be a 2022-style midterm, where you have mixed results — Democrats are able to flip some Senate seats, but Republicans are actually able to uphold or expand their House majority by small margins.
And the reason I bring that last point up is because this is another point that some critics on both sides are making. By trying to gerrymander things even more, you're making assumptions about what voters you have in your column, and given how much various parts of the electorate have swung…Black and Latino voters have swung toward the Republicans. Could they be swinging away from them this time around? Are you making an assumption as a Republican that you have a lot of a certain kind of voter, and then making a district slightly less safe because you're trying to shovel voters into a new district that you're creating?
It creates questions about same effect in California: If you try to max out even more districts, are you accidentally making some of your other districts more competitive than they have to be, and in that case, will you end up having to spend even more money and resources on races that weren't competitive before, but now are because you're trying to marginally make another seat less competitive?
There's a lot of inherent assumptions being made about what the electorate will look like next year. And again, one thing that's really easy to forget — and this is true for the parties, too, and I haven't really seen this discussed — is that in the Trump era, you have two different electorates. You have different electorates that turn out in midterms versus general elections. Sometimes it can be drastically different and much more Democratically aligned than you expect, and that ends up leading to overperformance, like in 2018 or 2022.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNBC
37 minutes ago
- CNBC
India to maintain Russian oil imports despite Trump threats, government sources say
India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite U.S. President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources told Reuters on Saturday, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. On top of a new 25% tariff on India's exports to the U.S., Trump indicated in a Truth Social post last month that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters he had heard that India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. But the sources said there would be no immediate changes. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Justifying India's oil purchases from Russia, a second source said India's imports of Russian grades had helped avoid a global surge in oil prices, which have remained subdued despite Western curbs on the Russian oil sector. Unlike Iranian and Venezuelan oil, Russian crude is not subject to direct sanctions, and India is buying it below the current price cap fixed by the European Union, the source said. The New York Times also quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials on Saturday as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy. Indian government authorities did not respond to Reuters' request for official comment on its oil purchasing intentions. However, during a regular press briefing on Friday, foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India has a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," he said. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump, who has made ending Russia's war in Ukraine a priority of his administration since returning to office this year, has expressed growing impatience with Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. He has threatened 100% tariffs on U.S. imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the leading supplier to India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, accounting for about 35% of its overall supplies. India imported about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June this year, up 1% from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. But while the Indian government may not be deterred by Trump's threats, sources told Reuters this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil after July discounts narrowed to their lowest since 2022 - when sanctions were first imposed on Moscow - due to lower Russian exports and steady demand. Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources told Reuters. Nayara Energy - a refinery majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft, and major buyer of Russian oil - was recently sanctioned by the EU. Nayara's chief executive resigned following the sanctions, and three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions, Reuters reported last week.

an hour ago
Senate confirms former Fox News host Pirro as top federal prosecutor for the nation's capital
WASHINGTON -- The Senate has confirmed former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro as the top federal prosecutor for the nation's capital, filling the post after President Donald Trump withdrew his controversial first pick, conservative activist Ed Martin Jr. Pirro, a former county prosecutor and elected judge, was confirmed 50-45. Before becoming the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia in May, she co-hosted the Fox News show 'The Five' on weekday evenings, where she frequently interviewed Trump. Trump yanked Martin's nomination after a key Republican senator said he could not support him due to Martin's outspoken support for rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Martin now serves as the Justice Department's pardon attorney. In 2021, voting technology company Smartmatic USA sued Fox News, Pirro and others for spreading false claims that the company helped 'steal' the 2020 presidential election from Trump. The company's libel suit, filed in a New York state court, sought $2.7 billion from the defendants. Last month, Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send Pirro's nomination to the Senate floor after Democrats walked out to protest Emil Bove's nomination to become a federal appeals court judge. Pirro, a 1975 graduate of Albany Law School, has significantly more courtroom experience than Martin, who had never served as a prosecutor or tried a case before taking office in January. She was elected as a judge in New York's Westchester County Court in 1990 before serving three terms as the county's elected district attorney. In the final minutes of his first term as president, Trump issued a pardon to Pirro's ex-husband, Albert Pirro, who was convicted in 2000 on conspiracy and tax evasion charges.


New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Sydney Sweeney's voter registration revealed amid American Eagle's ‘good jeans' ad backlash
Her jeans are red. Actress Sydney Sweeney's voter registration has come to light amid the woke backlash surrounding her controversial American Eagle denim campaign. The 27-year-old 'Euphoria' actress has been registered with the Republican Party of Florida in Monroe County since June 2024, according to public voter records viewed by The Post. 4 Sydney Sweeney in American Eagle jeans. American Eagle The starlet's party affiliation was first reported by Buzzfeed News Saturday, after a viral post on X that read: 'was about to make a whole youtube video exploring sydney sweeney's choices not defending her but going through her career context and i just found out this lady is an actual registered member of the republican party as of 2024.' 4 The 'White Lotus' starlet is a registered Republican voter in Florida. Getty Images for Armani beauty The post was part of a fierce firestorm ignited by lefty critics over the provocative ad featuring the blonde-haired, blue-eyed 'White Lotus' starlet — with some even comparing it to 'Nazi propaganda' that's promoting racism and eugenics. In one video released as part of the marketing campaign, Sweeney explains that genes are passed down from parents to offspring 'often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color,' before proclaiming, 'my jeans are blue.' A narrator then chimes in, 'Sydney Sweeney, has great jeans.' 4 Illustration of the Republican and Democratic party logos. eMIL' – In another ad, the actress approaches a billboard with her likeness and the phrase, 'Sydney Sweeney has great genes,' which she alters to cross out 'genes' and write 'jeans.' American Eagle shot back at critics Friday, defending its denim campaign and the 'Anyone But You' star. ''Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans' is and always was about the jeans,' the company said in a statement. 'Her jeans. Her story.' 'We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way,' the statement said. 'Great jeans look good on everyone.' 4 The ad sparked debate over 'Nazi propaganda,' racism and eugenics. American Eagle Even the White House jumped into the fray, with President Trump's communications director, Steven Cheung, coming to Sweeney's defense in a post late Tuesday that called the left-wing blowback 'cancel culture run amok.' While Sweeney herself has yet to respond to the public reaction, this is now the second time the Emmy nominee has ruffled feathers in liberal circles. Sweeney faced sharp criticism in 2022 after her family threw a 60th birthday party for her mother, where revelers wore red caps that played on the MAGA slogan – 'Make Sixty Great Again' — and 'Blue Lives Matter' shirts. She said at the time the family hoedown was misinterpreted as an 'absurd' political statement. Sweeney's reps didn't immediately return requests for comment.