
A risky bet? Texas Republicans poised to redraw congressional map on Trump's orders
The effort to redraw the map represents a blunt and undemocratic effort by Republican lawmakers to pick the voters who elect them, and comes at a time when many of the party's positions are unpopular. The US president and national Republicans are making the push because the GOP holds a 220-212 advantage in the US House (there are three Democratic vacancies) and Trump's party typically loses seats in the midterm elections, which will happen next year.
But it's a risky bet. Twenty-five of Texas's 38 congressional districts are currently represented by Republicans, a result that was carefully engineered when lawmakers redrew the state's congressional map in 2021. During that process, mapmakers focused on shoring up Republican seats instead of trying to pick up Democratic ones.
In order to pick up new seats, Republicans will have to spread their voters from safe Republican ones into Democratic districts. It could allow them to pick up more seats, but also makes the Republican districts more competitive and potentially winnable by Democrats in a strong year.
The number of seats Republicans are able to pick up 'depends on how much risk Republicans want to take,' said David Wasserman, an analyst at the Cook Political Report who closely follows US House races. 'Republicans could probably target three Democratic seats very easily, but once it gets to four or five, that could put additional Republican seats at risk.'
When Republicans drew the existing map, they blunted the political influence of non-white voters in the state, who accounted for 95% of the state's population growth over the last decade. The new maps could further weaken their ability to elect their preferred candidates.
'The current maps are already blatantly racist and discriminate against voters of color, communities of color, all over the state,' said Anthony Gutierrez, the executive director of the Texas chapter of Common Cause, a watchdog group. 'There would be absolutely no way you get to five more Republican districts without just completely trampling on minority voting rights.'
Two Democratic seats likely to be targeted are the ones in south Texas currently held by representatives Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, Wasserman said. Trump won both districts in 2024 and Republicans could easily tweak their boundaries to make them winnable. Democrats also represent four districts in the Houston area, and Republicans could shift the boundaries to try and pick up one or two districts depending on how aggressive they want to be.
The Republican push to redraw the map comes as the state is still reeling from deadly floods that left at least 134 people dead with more than 100 people still missing. Democrats in the Texas legislature are reportedly considering walking out of the special session in order to deny Republicans a quorum needed to pass the maps. Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, has said he will assist in 'hunting down' members who walk out and compel them back to the capitol.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
To justify redrawing the maps, Texas governor Greg Abbott pointed to a 7 July letter from the justice department claiming lawmakers had impermissibly sorted voters based on their race. Both the letter's argument, and Abbott's quick acceptance of it, raised eyebrows because Texas officials have said for years they did not consider race at all when they drew the maps.
'My jaw dropped when I saw that letter,' said Mark Gaber, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, who is representing some of the plaintiffs suing Texas over the maps already in place. 'Either the witnesses were not telling the truth or the entire premise of this special session and the mid-decade redistricting is false.'
In its letter, the justice department pointed to four districts where it claimed voters had been unconstitutionally sorted by race. In two of those districts, two different groups of minority voters constitute a majority that can elect their preferred candidates. Another district is majority Hispanic. The final district it raised issue with was drawn after judges found intentional discrimination in a previous district.
Several legal experts said those claims were highly questionable.
'The DoJ letter is completely concocted and it reflects a complete misunderstanding of the law, but that's not what they're interested in,' said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is representing some of the plaintiffs challenging the current congressional map.
'If I were them, I would be consulting legal counsel about the possibility of being found guilty of perjury in what they testified to under oath,' he added.
Mapmakers may want to keep communities who share common interests together for reasons that have nothing to do with their race, said Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School who worked on voting rights issues at both the justice department and White House said the letter was 'nonsense'.
'What they appear to articulate in the letters is the notion that any time there happens to be multiple minorities in a district, that's a constitutional violation. And that's like seven different versions of wrong,' he said.
Hashtags

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


The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Photos reveal Chile's pursuit of Venezuelan crime syndicate branded a terror threat by Trump
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.


BBC News
19 minutes ago
- BBC News
US-China talks to restart as hopes grow for trade war truce extension
The US and China are due to start a fresh round of talks on Monday as expectations grow that the world's two biggest economies could agree a 90-day extension to their trade war meetings in Sweden - led on Washington's side by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and for Beijing by Vice Premier He Lifeng - come hours after US President Donald Trump announced a framework tariffs deal with the European current 90-day truce between the US and China - which saw the two countries temporarily lowering tariffs on each other - is set to end on 12 Trump returned to the White House in January, the US and China had raised import levies on each other to more than 100%. The current 90-day tariffs pause came after top officials from the US and China met in Geneva and London earlier this week, Bessent said talks with China were in "a very good place" and suggested the new round of talks could result in a second Monday, citing sources on both sides, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported that the US and China are expected to extend the truce by another three BBC has contacted the Chinese embassy in the US and the US Treasury Department for latest US-China talks come after Washington struck deals with both the EU and Japan in the last Sunday, Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a trade agreement ended a months-long standoff between two of the world's biggest economic week, Trump said Washington had agreed a "massive" trade deal with the agreement, Japan would invest $550bn (£407bn) in the US while its goods sold to America would be taxed at 15% when they reach the country - below the 25% tariff Trump had US has also struck tariffs deals with the UK, Indonesia and 10%, Britain has negotiated the lowest US tariff rate so similar breakthrough is expected from the US-China talks this week but, with expectations of an extension to their truce, there are hopes that global trade will not be hit by fresh tariffs disruption.

The National
34 minutes ago
- The National
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.