logo
How California draws congressional districts

How California draws congressional districts

Gulf Today2 days ago
Seema Mehta,
Tribune News Service
The potential redrawing of California's congressional district lines could upend the balance of power in Washington, DC, in next year's midterm congressional election. The unusual and unexpected redistricting may take place in coming months because of sparring among President Donald Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Redrawing these maps — known as redistricting — is an esoteric practice that many voters tune out, but one that has an outsized impact on political power and policy in the United States. Here is a breakdown about why a process that typically occurs once every decade is currently receiving so much attention — and the potential ramifications.
What is redistricting? There are 435 members of the US House of Representatives, each of whom is supposed to represent roughly the same number of constituents. Every decade, after the US Census counts the population across the nation, the allocation of congressional representatives for each state can change. For example, after the 2020 census, California's share of congressional districts was reduced by one for the first time in state history. After the decennial census, states redraw district lines for congressional and legislative districts based on population shifts, protections for minority voters required by the federal Voting Rights Act and other factors. For much of the nation's history, such maps were created by state legislators and moneyed interests in smoke-filled backrooms. Many districts were grossly gerrymandered — contorted — to benefit political parties and incumbents, such as California's infamous "Ribbon of Shame," a congressional district that stretched in a reed-thin line 200 miles along the California coast from Oxnard to the Monterey County line.
But in recent decades, political-reform organizations and some elected officials, notably former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, called for independent drawing of district lines. In 2010, the state's voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure requiring California congressional maps to be drawn by a bipartisan commission, which it did in 2011 and 2021.
Why are we talking about this? President Trump recently urged Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional districts to increase the number of GOP members of the House in next year's midterm election. Congress is closely divided, and the party that does not control the White House traditionally loses seats in the body two years after the presidential election. Trump has been able to enact his agenda — from deporting undocumented immigrants to extending tax breaks that largely benefit the wealthy to closing some Planned Parenthood clinics — because the GOP controls the White House, the Senate and the House. But if Democrats flip Congress, Trump's agenda will likely be stymied and he faces the prospect of being a lame duck during his last two years in office.
What is Texas doing? Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state's Legislature into special session last week to discuss the disastrous floods that killed more than 130 people as well as redistricting before the 2026 election. Trump and his administration urged Abbott to redraw his state's congressional lines with the hope of picking up five seats. Abbott has said that his decision to include redistricting in the special session was prompted by a court decision last year that said the state no longer has to draw "coalition districts" that are made up of multiple minority communities. New district lines would give Texans greater opportunity to vote for politicians who best represent them, the governor said in interviews.
Democrats in the Lone Star state's Legislature met with Newsom in Sacramento on Friday to discuss the ramifications of mid-decade redistricting and accused Trump of trying to rig next year's midterm election to hold onto power. Republicans "play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away," Newsom said of the nation's history. "We are not going to allow that to happen." Democratic lawmakers in Texas have previously fled the state to not allow the Legislature to have a quorum, such as in 2021 during a battle over voting rights. But with the deadly flooding, this is an unlikely prospect this year.
Why is California in the mix? The Golden State's congressional districts are drawn by an independent commission focused on logical geography, shared interests, representation for minority communities and other facets. If the state reverts to partisan map drawing, redistricting experts on both sides of the aisle agree that several GOP incumbents in the 52-member delegation would be vulnerable, either because of more Democratic voters being placed in their districts, or being forced into face-offs with fellow Republican members of Congress. There are currently nine Republican members of the delegation, a number that could shrink to three or four, according to political statisticians.
Strange bedfellows These dizzying developments have created agreement among rivals while dividing former allies.
Sara Sadhwani, a member of the 2021 redistricting commission and longtime supporter of independent map drawing, said she supports Democratic efforts to change California's congressional districts before the midterm election. "I stand by the work of the commission of course. We drew fair and competitive maps that fully abided by federal laws around the Voting Rights Act to ensure communities of colour have an equal opportunity at the ballot box," said Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College. "That being said, especially when it comes to Congress, most certainly California playing fair puts Democrats at a disadvantage nationally." She said the best policy would be for all 50 states to embrace independent redistricting. But in the meantime, she supports Democratic efforts in California to temporarily redraw the districts given the stakes. "I think it's patriotic to fight against what appears to be our democracy falling into what appears to be authoritarian rule," Sadhwani said. Charles Munger Jr., the son of a late billionaire who was Warren Buffet's right-hand man, spent more than $12 million to support the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission and is invested in making sure that it is not weakened. "He's very much committed to making sure the commission is preserved," said someone close to Munger who requested anonymity to speak candidly. Munger believes "this is ultimately political quicksand and a redistricting war at the end of day is a loss to American voters."
Munger, who was the state GOP's biggest donor at one point, is actively involved in the California fight and is researching other efforts to fight gerrymandering nationwide, this person said. The state Democratic and Republican parties, which rarely agree on anything, agreed in 2010 when they opposed the ballot measure. Now, Democrats, who would likely gain seats if the districts are redrawn by state lawmakers, support a mid-decade redistricting, while the state GOP, which would likely lose seats, says the state should continue having lines drawn by the independent commission once every decade.
"It's a shame that Governor Newsom and the radical Left in Sacramento are willing to spend $200 million on a statewide special election, while running a deficit of $20 billion, in order to silence the opposition in our state," the GOP congressional delegation said in a statement on Friday. "As a Delegation we will fight any attempt to disenfranchise California voters by whatever means necessary to ensure the will of the people continues to be reflected in redistricting and in our elections."
What happens next? If Democrats in California move forward with their proposal, which is dependent on what Texas lawmakers do during their special legislative session that began last week, they have two options:
• State lawmakers could vote to put the measure before voters in a special election that would likely be held in November — a costly prospect. The last statewide special election — the unsuccessful effort to recall Newsom in 2021 — cost more than $200 million, according to the secretary of state's office.
• The Legislature could also vote to redraw the maps, but this option would likely be more vulnerable to legal challenge. Either scenario is expected to be voted on as an urgency item, which requires a 2/3 vote but would insulate the action from being the subject of a referendum later put in front of voters that would delay enactment. The Legislature is out of session until mid-August.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The politics of compromise and conviction
The politics of compromise and conviction

Gulf Today

timean hour ago

  • Gulf Today

The politics of compromise and conviction

Luke Harris, Tribune News Service Scott Turner was a Texas House Representative, now serving in the Trump Administration as the Secretary of US Housing & Urban Development (HUD). In the Texas House, he talked about 'being the best we can,' and espoused high standards for himself and his colleagues; however, in his current position, he has voiced no complaints or objections against the administration or the Republican Party. Perhaps for less cynical reasons than power itself, but to pursue his policies on housing and healthcare. Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics, always for something greater, something they can achieve with one more step. That 'one more step' toward completely surrendering their integrity, confounding their ethical clarity, and adopting whatever means meet their ends. During a keynote address in 2014, he spoke of the duty to break the status quo, Democrat or Republican, he said, 'We need servant leaders.... People who live by conviction and principle, not by the waves of the sea of what's popular today.' He shared his experience growing up in a poor home, and his father working two jobs. At his confirmation, he talked empathetically about the homelessness crisis and how his family took in his uncle, providing him with the services he needed. Trump has made comments expressing disdain for the homeless; he said these people were hurting the 'prestige' of major cities, and many homeless people might prefer their situation. An NBC affiliate network reported that 1 in 4 low-income households eligible for HUD rental assistance receive benefits. Turner is championing time limits, which means taking away benefits from more low-income households still unable to afford the cost of living. Trump has further plans to remove people from homeless encampments and place them in large camps or tent-cities, where they will be mandated to receive mental health or addiction treatment. Seemingly in conflict with his views on homelessness and background, these policies are consistent with his previous stances representing Texas, for example, restricting welfare, requiring drug testing for unemployment benefits, voting against free-lunch programs in Texas schools, and opposing the Affordable Care Act. He defined his career as a Texas Representative as an uncompromising advocate for transparency, leading extensive investigations into the conduct of his colleagues, and voting on policies to increase accountability. For example, he voted for HB 1690, which authorized rangers to investigate misconduct of an official or public administration and refer cases to the State Attorney General. He has parted ways with these values, perhaps to advocate for his conservative policies on social programs such as welfare and housing subsidies. However, compromising his fight against improper leadership or self-interested governance — accepting the numerous examples of corruption and secrecy — to achieve an agenda or implement a policy, is not leading on principle or conviction. The Epstein scandal is a recent example of something that clearly runs against Turner's previous views on government transparency and accountability. The footage and DOJ reports are inconsistent, and the Administration, DOJ, and FBI have refused to comment. For example, the files obtained by the AP provide a Suicide Timeline; at 6:33 a.m., staff found Epstein unresponsive, and at 6:45 a.m., EMS arrived. The DOJ released raw footage from the hallway camera. According to the FBI, anyone entering the cell would have been visible on that camera, but the footage shows no one entering his cell around the provided timeline. More concerningly, Pam Bondi, Trump's Attorney General, has directly undermined the investigation into the Epstein files, ordering thousands of FBI agents to redact files. Bondi allegedly pressured the FBI to recruit 1,000 personnel to review 100,000 files relating to Jefferey Epstein and 'flag' any that mentioned Donald Trump. It would not be an exaggeration to compare the redaction of the Epstein files to the shredding of papers or deletion of tapes in the Watergate Scandal. Furthermore, his treatment of the press, on the Epstein Scandal and throughout his two terms, displays a hostility not seen since Nixon's 'Enemy List': revoking CNN reporter Jim Acosta's press pass, restricting AP reporters' access to White House events, ending funding for public broadcast stations, suing 60 Minutes, recently launching a $22 billion suit against The Wall Street Journal, and attacking reporters for 'fake news' or calling journalists 'nasty.'

Britain is in the midst of one long, hot, nervous summer
Britain is in the midst of one long, hot, nervous summer

Gulf Today

time4 hours ago

  • Gulf Today

Britain is in the midst of one long, hot, nervous summer

Adrian Wooldridge, Tribune News Service There is an ominous sense in the air in Britain — a sense that the country is headed toward the rocks and that the captain has no idea how to steer the ship. This feeling is vague — hardly the stuff of graphs or numbers — but vague feelings can sometimes tell us more about the future than the hardest economic statistics. The two biggest rocks on the horizon are labeled debt crisis and civil unrest. Blood-curdling warnings from the right are par for the course. Andrew Neil warns in the Daily Mail that 'broke Britain is on the edge of financial disaster ... I'm scared for what's to come.' But equally dire warnings are coming from the left — and even from the very heart of government. Gary Smith, the general secretary of the GMB union, notes that 'our finances are precarious ... this could unravel very quickly.' Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has told her boss that Britain could face a repeat of last year's summer riots unless 'the government shows it can address people's concerns.' Seven in 10 Britons think that it's likely the country will experience race riots in the future, according to a poll for The Economist. Why are the British in such a state of angst? And, more importantly, are they right to be so worried? The country's economic problems stem from a combination of rising debt and dismal growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility recently warned of Britain's 'relatively vulnerable' position, with the sixth-highest debt among 36 advanced economies, the fifth-highest deficit and the third-highest borrowing costs. The government recorded the second-highest June borrowing figure since records began in 1993 (and that was only exceeded by June 2020 when COVID was raging). Bond markets have traditionally given a lot of leeway to Britain because of its reputation for seriousness. They also give leeway to governments that have a large majority and a clear plan for dealing with their debt. But Starmer's Labour looks more like a divided minority government on its last legs than a one-year-old government with a huge majority. It failed to pass a modest package of welfare reforms that would raise £1.5 billion ($2 billion) from means-testing winter fuel payments and £5 billion from cutting health and disability benefits, when public spending stands at £1.3 trillion a year. The government's promise that it will grow its way out of its fiscal hole has evaporated, with Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves instead digging deeper by increasing taxes on labor and driving away wealthy people (particularly non-doms) who pay a disproportionate share of taxes. The last fortnight has seen a couple of tense street protests — in Epping and Canary Wharf. In both cases, locals protested the government's decision to take over local hotels and fill them with young male asylum seekers, chanting 'send them home' and 'save our kids.' The protests quickly gained national resonance: Organized agitators from both the left and the right came in from across the country, and the internet lit up with furious posts. We have no equivalent of the OBR to give a balanced assessment of the state of the country's social fabric, but a bipartisan report by Sajid Javid, a former Conservative home secretary, and John Cruddas, a Labour grandee, published by the think tank British Future, makes for sobering reading: The authors warn that Britain is sitting on a 'powder keg' of social tensions that could easily ignite again. The social bonds that have traditionally held society together have been fraying for decades, they say, but the tensions have been significantly increased by rapid immigration and poor assimilation. Trust in politicians is at an all-time low with 45% of people in the 2024 British Social Attitudes Survey saying they 'almost never' trust governments of any party to put the needs of the nation above the interests of their own political party, up by 22 percentage points from 2020. I think it is still more likely than not that Britain will muddle through without either a debt crisis or a major series of riots, let alone a civil war, as one academic, David Betz, a professor of war studies at King's College, London, has predicted. Reeves has the option of breaking her electoral promise and raising general taxation. The government is, finally, giving the impression that it is taking the small boats crisis seriously by targeting the international gangs that profit from people smuggling and cracking down on the food delivery services that profit from illegal labor. What we are probably in for instead is prolonged pain rather than sudden crisis. But a major shock cannot be ruled out. The most serious worry is that the barriers that protect us from either a debt contagion or a social conflagration have been eroded. Britain's credit with the global markets is not what it was since the Liz Truss fiasco. And many people's trust in the establishment has been weakened by that establishment's failure to control the pace of immigration or manage the social consequences.

Opec+ makes another large oil output hike in market share push
Opec+ makes another large oil output hike in market share push

Khaleej Times

time8 hours ago

  • Khaleej Times

Opec+ makes another large oil output hike in market share push

Opec+ agreed on Sunday to raise oil production by 547,000 barrels per day for September, the latest in a series of accelerated output hikes to regain market share, as concerns mount over potential supply disruptions linked to Russia. The move marks a full and early reversal of Opec+'s largest tranche of output cuts plus a separate increase in output for the UAE amounting to about 2.5 million bpd, or about 2.4 per cent of world demand. Eight Opec+ members held a brief virtual meeting, amid increasing US pressure on India to halt Russian oil purchases — part of Washington's efforts to bring Moscow to the negotiating table for a peace deal with Ukraine. President Donald Trump said he wants this by August 8. In a statement following the meeting, Opec+ cited a healthy economy and low stocks as reasons behind its decision. Oil prices have remained elevated even as Opec+ has raised output, with Brent crude closing near $70 a barrel on Friday, up from a 2025 low of near $58 in April, supported in part by rising seasonal demand. 'Given fairly strong oil prices at around $70, it does give Opec+ some confidence about market fundamentals,' said Amrita Sen, co-founder of Energy Aspects, adding that the market structure was also indicating tight stocks. The eight countries are scheduled to meet again on September 7, when they may consider reinstating another layer of output cuts totalling around 1.65 million bpd, two Opec+ sources said following Sunday's meeting. Those cuts are currently in place until the end of next year. Opec+ in full includes 10 non-Opec oil producing countries, most notably Russia and Kazakhstan. The group, which pumps about half of the world's oil, had been curtailing production for several years to support oil prices. It reversed course this year in a bid to regain market share, spurred in part by calls from Trump for Opec to ramp up production. The eight began raising output in April with a modest hike of 138,000 bpd, followed by larger-than-planned hikes of 411,000 bpd in May, June and July, 548,000 bpd in August and now 547,000 bpd for September. 'So far the market has been able to absorb very well those additional barrels also due to stockpiliing activity in China,' said Giovanni Staunovo of UBS. 'All eyes will now shift on the Trump decision on Russia this Friday.' As well as the voluntary cut of about 1.65 million bpd from the eight members, Opec+ still has a 2-million-bpd cut across all members, which also expires at the end of 2026. 'Opec+ has passed the first test,' said Jorge Leon of Rystad Energy and a former Opec official, as it has fully reversed its largest cut without crashing prices. 'But the next task will be even harder: deciding if and when to unwind the remaining 1.66 million barrels, all while navigating geopolitical tension and preserving cohesion.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store