Joe Rogan tells Texas Democrat he should run for president
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
3 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California Democrats may target GOP congressional districts to counter Texas
California Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom may upend the state's mandate for independently drawn political districts as part of a brewing, national political brawl over the balance of power in Congress and the fate of the aggressive, right-wing agenda of President Trump and the GOP. The effort being considered by state Democratic leaders is specifically intended to reduce the number of Republicans in California's congressional delegation, retaliation for the ongoing actions by GOP leaders in Texas to unseat Democratic representatives in its state, reportedly at Trump's behest. 'I think this whole thing is a horrible idea all the way around … and I don't think people fully understand the ramifications of what they're talking about,' said Republican redistricting expert Matt Rexroad. 'Once we get to the point where we're just doing random redistricting after every election … redistricting won't be used as a tool to reflect voter interests. It will be used to just bludgeon minority political interests, whether it be Republican or Democrat, after every election.' Newsom already has been in talks with Democratic legislative leaders and others about reconfiguring California's congressional district boundaries before the 2026 election. Doing so probably would require a statewide ballot measure to scrap or temporarily pause the voter-approved, independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission charged with drawing the boundaries of congressional districts based on logical geography, shared interests, representation for minority communities and other facets. In 2010, Californians voted to create the commission to take partisan politics out of the redistricting process for Congress, two years after they did so for the state Legislature. Newsom said California may have to take the emergency action if Texas and other GOP-controlled states this year decide to redraw their congressional districts to ensure that Republicans keep control of Congress in the upcoming election. Redrawing of congressional districts typically occurs after the decennial census to reflect population shifts across the nation. 'So they want to change the game,' he said last week. 'We can act holier-than-thou. We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment.' Redistricting experts in both parties agree that reverting to partisan redrawing of congressional lines in California would make several GOP incumbents vulnerable. The state's congressional districts could be reconfigured to increase the share of Democratic voters in districts currently represented by Republicans, or in a way that forces Republican officeholders to face off against one another. Rexroad sees a scenario in which Republicans are so packed into districts that the party would have only three safe seats. Only nine of the state's 52 congressional districts are currently represented by the GOP. Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell said five of nine GOP-held districts could be flipped. He said Democrats are in a good position to gain seats because of California's history of nonpartisan redistricting. In Texas, by comparison, districts already are gerrymandered to favor Republicans. In California, 'Democrats haven't had partisan line-drawing since the '90s,' he said. 'So there's all this partisan gain left on the table for decades. If you ever do crack open the map, there's just many available to bolster' the party's existing grip on the delegation. Rexroad warns that there would be unintended consequences, including weakening safe Republican districts in Texas and leading to a broken system in which lines are redrawn after every election to benefit whichever party controls the White House or various legislative bodies. Before the creation of the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, California was similar to most other states. Political districts were created by state lawmakers of both parties who often prioritized incumbent protection and gerrymandered oddly shaped districts, such as the infamous 'ribbon of shame,' where a 200-mile coastal sliver of a congressional district between Oxnard and the Monterey County line disappeared during high tide. Former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder said such districts are why he started the National Democratic Redistricting Committee with former President Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) in 2017. 'Because of our work, we now have the fairest national congressional map the country has seen in a generation, one that allows both parties to compete for the majority in the House,' Holder said Wednesday at a 'Stop the Texas Takeover' virtual event hosted by the redistricting committee. That could fall by the wayside, however, if some states crack open their redistricting process for partisan gain and states controlled by the opposing party retaliate by doing to the same. California Democrats are considering trying to revisit the independent line-drawing after President Trump and his administration urged Texans to redraw their districts in a way that probably would improve the GOP's ability to hold control of Congress in next year's midterm election. The House is narrowly divided, and the party that wins the White House often loses seats in the body two years later. The loss of a handful of GOP seats would stymie Trump's plans, potentially making him a lame duck for two years. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called for a special session of the state Legislature that includes redistricting and began Monday. On Tuesday, Abbott said the decision was prompted by a court decision last year that said the state no longer has to draw 'coalition districts,' which are made up of multiple minority communities. 'New maps will work toward insuring that we will maximize the ability of Texas to be able to vote for the candidate of their choice,' he said in an interview with Fox 4 Dallas-Fort Worth. 'This is shameless, shameless, the mid-decade redistricting that they're doing at the orders of Donald Trump,' Pelosi said Wednesday at the 'Stop the Texas Takeover' event. 'And this is what we're doing in California. We're saying to the Texans, 'You shouldn't be going down this path. We go down this path, we'll go down together.'' If California Democrats pursue partisan redistricting in time for next year's midterm election, the Legislature, in which Democrats hold a supermajority, could place the matter on the ballot during a special election that probably would take place in November. State lawmakers also could opt to make the change through legislation, though that probably would be vulnerable to a legal challenge. Nonpartisan congressional redistricting was one of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's priorities when it was approved by voters in 2010. Schwarzenegger hasn't weighed in on the state potentially rescinding the reform. But the director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute, which includes such political reforms among its top priorities, warned that weakening California's system would be out of sync with the state's values. 'We're in a scary position with all this talk of this gerrymandering arms race between Texas and California,' said Conyers Davis, global director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy. 'It's really a race to the bottom for voters in both states and the entire country as a whole. We should be celebrating California's citizen redistricting commission and looking to expand that model into other states, not looking for political ways to dismember it and erode its powers.' The state Republican Party, which opposed the creation of the redistricting commission, now supports the body in the face of a proposal that would cost it seats. 'To sort of start to mess with it right at this point in time, it just kind of undermines the whole independent redistricting commission that everybody has come to rely on,' said Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party. 'And I don't know what it will look like constitutionally.' Asked about Texas, she demurred, saying she was focused on California. State Democrats, who also opposed the creation of the commission, cheered the potential response to Texas. 'Trump and Republicans — from D.C. to Texas — are attempting to rewrite the rules of our democracy,' said Rusty Hicks, chairman of the California Democratic Party. 'With so much at stake, California may be left with little choice but to fight fire with fire to protect and preserve our democracy.' Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats pressure Schumer, Senate to hold line on GOP spending bills
House Democrats are cranking up the pressure on their Senate colleagues to hold the line against any Republican spending bills, warning that support for partisan legislation would prove more harmful than a potential shutdown — and trigger an outcry from the party's already deflated base. House Democrats were virtually united against a GOP spending package in March, only to see Senate Democrats — most notably Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — help Republicans advance it into law. The episode infuriated Democrats in and out of Congress, eroded trust between the chambers and raised some questions about Schumer's future at the top of the party. Yet with another spending battle brewing for September — and Republicans already eyeing steep federal cuts anathema across the aisle — House Democrats are holding out hope that this time will be different. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is already warning that a Republican-only spending package is 'dead on arrival.' And even those lawmakers most critical of Schumer's strategy in March are predicting the chambers will be united when the battle heats up ahead of the Oct. 1 shutdown deadline. 'Leader Jeffries putting that strong line down is something I support, and something I think that our whole party will rally around,' said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who had scorched Schumer's handling of the earlier debate. Democrats are pointing to two reasons why they think the current spending fight might play out differently from the one in March, when Schumer joined nine other Senate Democrats to advance the Republican spending bill. First, the recent GOP efforts to claw back funds already approved by Congress has united House and Senate Democrats, who are accusing Republicans of violating bipartisan deals negotiated in good faith. Those so-called rescissions have diminished the Democrats' trust in President Trump and Republicans to honor spending agreements, even when both parties are on board, while giving Democrats plenty of ammunition to justify their opposition to GOP-only bills. Russell Vought, Trump's budget director, has fueled those arguments by recently advising Republicans to abandon bipartisanship in setting federal spending. 'My hope is that, due to what has happened — especially with the Republicans using rescissions to essentially renege on deals that were made before … the Senate sees that and says, 'They're not operating in good faith,'' said Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.). Others pointed to Trump's record of shifting funds — or simply refusing to spend money on the programs Congress intended — as reason for Senate Democrats to reject any spending bills that lack bipartisan buy-in — or guardrails that would ensure funds go where they're directed. 'Right now, we have a president that's operating outside of the bounds of the law and the Constitution — a president that doesn't give a damn about checks and balances, doesn't give a damn what you actually pass, he's going to do whatever he wants,' said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.). 'So why are you going to help the Republicans pass something that's going to be devastating? And then he's going to take it a step further?' Secondly, in light of the outcry that followed Schumer's actions in March, many Democrats suggested he simply couldn't survive another round of internal attacks. 'I had a phone call last night about this issue. [The caller said], 'Well, Schumer is probably going to fold.' And I said, 'No, no, he's not going to,'' said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.). 'His future might hinge on this, but I also think that it will be the most obvious thing for him to do,' he continued. 'I think he realized that our base is not going to tolerate us just rolling over and rolling over.' Schumer, in recent days, has taken long strides to reassure fellow Democrats that he's ready for a fight. In floor speeches and press conferences, the Senate's top Democrat has warned Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) that partisan spending bills, to include rescissions, have threatened to destroy a decades-old tradition of bipartisan appropriations. Schumer is also going out of his way to align himself with House Democrats on the issue. 'We're in agreement. We all want to pursue a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations process,' Schumer told reporters after a meeting with Jeffries. 'That's how it's always been done successfully, and we believe that should happen.' His words haven't been overlooked by House Democrats, who are cheering Schumer's warning shots delivered so far ahead of the shutdown deadline. Their focus on the Senate is practical: The filibuster is the single most powerful tool available to the minority Democrats, and only the Senate has access to it. 'He seems to be setting forth, well in advance of the deadline, what his bottom lines are,' said Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.). 'I appreciate what he's saying that they have a slightly different role in that they can actually stop this. At the same token, they can actually stop this, and insist on a more bipartisan approach.' In March, Schumer made the calculation that allowing the government to shut down — and risk having Democrats be blamed — would prove more harmful than enduring the inevitable friendly fire from liberals that would come from supporting the GOP package. This time around, some Democrats say he has much more cover. 'I have confidence in Sen. Schumer, because I think that was then and this is now. And now, I think, it is clear that we — on both sides [of the Capitol] — should stick to our core values and vote no,' said Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.). 'I understand his concern back then,' he added. 'But I think public opinion, and of course reality, shows that the American people are willing to understand a shutdown, because they also understand that the details of many of these spending bills are horrific, and that it would impact their personal lives.' Jeffries, for his part, is vowing that House Democrats will be united against partisan GOP spending bills. And he's predicting that, this time, Democratic senators will be allies in that fight. 'A partisan spending bill is dead on arrival in terms of securing significant Democratic support or any Democratic support in the House,' he said, 'and I believe that that is the case in the Senate, as well.' Most Democrats seem to agree, but there are also signs that the distrust created in March is still lingering ahead of the next shutdown battle. 'This is politics, so you can only trust people as far as you can throw 'em. And especially senators,' Gomez said. 'Call me crazy, but I don't like cutting deals with somebody that continues to be punching me in the face and then says that they're doing me a favor,' he added. 'And that's what Donald Trump does to the Senate Democrats every time they capitulate on that kind of … legislation.'
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
GOP leaders submarined by Epstein uproar
House Republican leaders who have tried to contain the furor over the Jeffrey Epstein files lost their grip on the matter this week — and surrendered control of the wider operations of the lower chamber. A bonanza of subpoenas for Epstein-related materials and testimony erupted in the House Oversight Committee. A House Appropriations Committee markup was postponed amid threats of Democrats forcing more Epstein-related materials. And a rebellion on the House Rules Committee over Epstein amendments thwarted plans for House votes, prompting leaders to begin August recess one day early. Hanging over the whirlwind of a week is a discharge petition that Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) is vowing to spearhead for his bipartisan resolution — co-sponsored by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) — calling for the release of the Epstein files. The mechanism will not be ready for action until September, given the House's strict rules, meaning the Epstein saga will still be a live issue on Capitol Hill when lawmakers return from their August recess. Supporters of the effort say they have no plans to relent. 'I think it'll grow,' Massie said when asked if he thinks the Epstein controversy will still be of interest when the House returns in September. That prediction runs counter to the posture of House GOP leaders, who had hoped that the coming August recess would give the Epstein saga time to fade. The Speaker this week argued that the courts need time to work through the process, giving deference to the administration to release information on its own terms before the House compelled it to do so. In a sign of that position, House GOP leaders acquiesced to members of the House Rules Committee who wanted to avoid taking more votes on Democratic amendments on Epstein, putting the panel into an indefinite recess and delaying bills that were scheduled to come up for a full floor vote — though Johnson publicly said the move was to avoid playing Democrats' 'political games.' President Trump made an overture to members of the Rules Republicans at another White House event on Tuesday amid the drama, inviting a group of them into the Oval Office. But Chair Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said that Trump thanked them for their work on the 'big, beautiful bill' of his tax cut and spending priorities without mentioning the Epstein holdup. Not every Rules panel member was there — with Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), one of those calling for more Epstein action by Republicans, saying he was not made aware of the gathering. While the moves made by Republicans were shocking, they were not surprising for some: Leaders had been warned that another Epstein eruption could be coming in other corners of the House. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said he had told Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) last week that if the House was in session this week, he would not be able to stop Republicans from making moves for more Epstein information. 'I told Speaker Johnson last week that if we were in session this week that Republicans on the Oversight Committee were going to move to be more aggressive and try to get transparency with the Epstein files,' Comer said on Thursday. Comer's full committee on Tuesday approved a motion from Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex offender and longtime Epstein associate. Johnson subsequently raised doubts about Maxwell's credibility and usefulness of her testimony. 'Can we trust what she's gonna say, even if she raises her hand and says that she'll testify under oath?' Johnson said. 'Is that something that can be trusted? You know, that's a reasonable question. Is that credible evidence?' Comer, bound by the rules of the committee, issued the Maxwell subpoena and hopes to depose her from prison on Aug. 11. But that wasn't all. On Wednesday, an Oversight subcommittee greenlit a motion from Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) to subpoena the Department of Justice on materials relating to Epstein — with three Republicans joining Democrats to approve the subpoena. Softening the blow from the Democratic motion, the subcommittee also approved by voice vote a motion from Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to approve a swath of subpoenas to high profile former Democratic officials, including the former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who knew Maxwell and Epstein. 'I'm surprised that the Democrats went along with subpoenaing Bill and Hillary Clinton and others that were involved with that,' Comer said Thursday. 'I never thought we would be questioning the Clintons and others on — with respect to the Epstein files, but the Democrats voted in a bipartisan manner yesterday to do that.' The drama didn't end there. The House Appropriations Committee postponed a markup for a bill to fund the Justice Department and other agencies that had been scheduled for Thursday, as Democrats were planning to force more amendment votes on Epstein. A source told The Hill that Democrats were 'absolutely' going to bring more votes on Epstein amendments, adding: 'We think that may be one of the reasons they canceled.' Markups in the past have been shifted due to changes in the House calendar, and the Appropriations Committee noted that votes were canceled on Thursday when postponing the markup. The wave of action on Capitol Hill comes as the Trump administration is taking steps to try and quell the anger — but those efforts that are already running into roadblocks. Last week, President Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to move to release relevant grand jury transcripts from the Epstein case. On Wednesday, however, a federal judge in Florida declined that entreaty, rebuffing their attempt at releasing information from the Sunshine State's 2005 and 2007 federal investigations into Epstein. And this week, a top Justice Department official was expected to meet with Maxwell in Florida. Massie said the administration's efforts won't be enough to quell the outcry among GOP lawmakers. 'They're gonna do drips and drabs,' he said of the administration's attempts to release information, 'and so the drips and drabs aren't gonna get it done.' If that is the case, more House action could be on the horizon. Johnson said if the administration does not provide enough information, the chamber would take matters into their own hands come the fall. 'This information should have come out a long time ago,' Johnson told reporters in the Capitol on Wednesday. 'I've been an advocate of that, we all have. But that process is underway right now, and we've got to zealously guard that and protect it and make sure it's happening. And if it doesn't, then we'll take appropriate action when everybody returns here. But we have to allow the court process to play out, that's how it works.'
