Texas Republicans propose new U.S. House map with more winnable GOP seats
The new map would create five new Republican-leaning seats that Trump is seeking as his party looks to bolster its chances of maintaining its slim House majority. Republicans hope to pass it during a special 30-day session of the GOP-dominated Legislature called by GOP Gov. Greg Abbott.
Most of the changes target Texas' big cities, which are the few strongholds for Democrats in the booming state of more than 30 million residents.
Trump had urged Texas to help the GOP, and his team has signaled that efforts could expand to other states, with a similar push underway in Missouri.
'My understanding is that there is a path forward for a Republican to win five more of those seats,' said Republican state Rep. Cody Vasut, chair of the Texas House's redistricting committee, on the new maps.
But the effort has spurred a push by Democrats in California and New York to consider redrawing their districts as well to counter the GOP efforts. Democrats in Texas also are considering walking out to prevent the GOP from passing new maps before the special session ends Aug. 19, though Abbott could simply call another one.
Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 seats, and the new map ups the total they could win to 30. Had the same lines been in place in 2024, Trump would have carried each of the 30 districts by at least 10 percentage points, leading to conservative optimism despite what's likely to be a tough midterm environment for the party.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on social media that 'The 2026 election is being rigged.'
'California won't sit back and watch that happen,' he posted on X.
Legislators in Texas and and other states have walked out of legislative sessions before, hoping to thwart the other party, with mixed results.
In 1979, a dozen liberal Democratic state senators in Texas who became known as the 'Killer Bees' bunked down in a staffer's garage and evaded Texas Rangers for four days, killing a plan to change the date of the state's GOP presidential primary to favor former Gov. John Connally.
In 2003, when Texas Republicans also sought to redraw district lines in place for only one congressional election, Democrats fled to Oklahoma and New Mexico but failed to overturn the GOP plan. Republicans had taken full control of the Legislature in the 2002 elections for the first time since the 1870s, and their new congressional map allowed the GOP to pick up six seats in 2004, meaning they held 21 to the Democrats' 11.
U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, whose seat would be drawn into a liberal district for Austin and San Antonio with fellow Democratic incumbent Lloyd Doggett, called the proposed changes 'illegal voter suppression,' because his district would be merged with another Democratic-held seat.
'Everyone who cares about our democracy must mobilize against this illegal map,' Casar said in a statement.
The new seats come from making two Rio Grande Valley seats that have been narrowly won by Democrats recently slightly more Republican, collapsing the seats held by Casar and Doggett and turning two Democratic-held seats in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area into GOP-majority ones.
Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust overseeing GOP mapmaking, defended the proposal as beneficial for minority communities in Texas' two largest cities. He said the new map would create two new Black-majority seats, one in Dallas and the other in the Houston area, and one new majority Hispanic one.
'If you go through it, you're going to see that a lot of the communities that were broken up in the previous map were put together in this one,' he said.
Trump has been pushing for redistricting in Texas with the explicit goal of making it easier for Republicans to defend their U.S. House majority. And Democrats are limited in their options for countering the GOP's efforts.
In California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has talked about redistricting, but an independent commission draws political boundaries.
In New York, Democrats introduced a proposal this week that would allow a new map ahead of schedule, but it would require amending the state constitution, a change that must pass the Legislature twice and be approved by voters. The soonest new lines could be in place would be 2028.
New York also has a nonpartisan commission that is supposed to come up with the state's congressional lines, though Democrats have in the past overridden the commission's map to draw districts that would be more favorable for their party.
Democratic state Sen. Michael Gianaris, who is sponsoring the proposal, acknowledged the 2026 shortcomings of his legislation but said 'we can't just sit there and watch' as Texas redraw its maps.
'There may be opportunities elsewhere but this is not a battle that's going to be over in a year,' he said in a phone interview after Texas proposed its new map. 'Unfortunately this is just a new front in the manipulation in our democracy to gain political advantage.'
During the first few days of Texas' special session, Republicans faced scathing criticism from Democrats, who questioned the timing of redistricting efforts when lawmakers are supposed to be focused on providing relief following deadly Hill Country floods.
In GOP-led hearings, hundreds of residents testified and expressed their concerns about not yet being able to see the maps and what new districts could mean for Democratic voters. Vasut repeatedly denied the maps would harm voters.
Cappelletti, Hanna and Lathan write for the Associated Press. Cappelletti reported from Washington and Hanna, from Topeka, Kan. AP writers Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, N.Y., and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
America Needs a Digital Dollar
As China accelerates deployment of its digital yuan, and the European Central Bank advances toward a digital euro, the Republican Party is seeking to prevent the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in the United States. Their insistence on clinging to an increasingly obsolete financial infrastructure means that Americans will continue to be saddled with billions in unnecessary fees every year and that corporations will be empowered to erode our privacy in Orwellian fashion. What's more, handicapping ourselves in this way will only make it more likely that the dollar's dominance in global finance will come to a premature end. America needs a digital dollar, and we need it now. The Trump administration's recent digital assets report explicitly prohibits federal agencies from establishing or promoting CBDCs, arguing they "threaten the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States." This position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital currencies actually work—and ignores the privacy advantages they could provide over our current system. Consider this analogy: when you send a package through the United States Postal Service, the Fourth Amendment protects its contents from unreasonable government search. That same package sent via FedEx or UPS enjoys no such constitutional protection. Similarly, a government-issued digital currency would operate under constitutional constraints and democratic oversight that private payment systems simply don't face. As such, a government run service inherently offers more privacy protection than its privately run counterpart. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. Chesnot/Getty Images Today, every swipe of your credit card, every electronic transfer, and every digital payment flows through private corporations that collect, analyze, and monetize your financial data. Banks routinely share transaction information with third parties, build detailed consumer profiles, and sell insights about your spending habits. In contrast, a properly designed CBDC could implement strong privacy protections by design, limiting data collection to only what's necessary for monetary policy and financial crime prevention. The economic benefits of a digital dollar are even more compelling. Americans currently pay $5-10 billion annually in overdraft fees alone—money that could stay in families' pockets with a CBDC system that allows direct government-to-citizen transfers and eliminates many banking intermediaries. The millions of Americans who remain unbanked or underbanked would finally have access to basic financial services without requiring a traditional bank account. Even for those in the baking system, the benefits of a CBDC are potentially enormous. Wire transfers, which cost $13-$44 each on average and take days to settle, could become nearly instantaneous and free. That speed in payment settlement would also make a huge difference to Americans when they need emergency aid quickly, as a CBDC could allow the government to deliver relief payments in minutes rather than weeks. The urgency in America to adopt a CBDC extends beyond domestic concerns. In an era of growing geopolitical competition, monetary policy has become a tool of statecraft. The country that controls the dominant digital payment infrastructure will wield enormous influence over global commerce. China understands this, which is why it has invested heavily in digital yuan infrastructure and is actively promoting its use. China is creating first-mover advantages that will be difficult or even impossibly to overcome if we continue to stall. The Federal Reserve has spent years studying CBDC technology. We should be encouraging and guiding them on this task rather than holding them back. In doing so, critics should keep in mind that CBDC implementation need not be revolutionary. A digital dollar should complement rather than replace physical currency, giving Americans choice while maintaining familiar monetary arrangements. So too could retailers freely choose whether to accept digital payments, just as they currently decide whether to accept credit cards. Additional privacy protections for all users can also be built into the system's architecture, not added as an afterthought. The real threat to American privacy and financial sovereignty isn't a democratically governed CBDC—it's ceding monetary leadership to authoritarian competitors and unaccountable private corporations that enrich themselves off our data while impoverishing the worst off among us. The question isn't whether digital currencies will reshape global finance, it's whether America will lead this transformation or watch from the sidelines as others determine the future of money. For the sake of American competitiveness, financial inclusion, and yes, even privacy, it's time for a digital dollar. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Cooper leads first public poll since jumping in North Carolina Senate race
Cooper, who finished his second term in 2024, starts the open race to replace Tillis with stronger name recognition and favorability than Whatley, a first-time candidate. Most voters view Cooper positively, one-third perceive him negatively and just 13 percent are unsure, the poll found. By contrast, nearly two-thirds of voters do not know or are unsure of Whatley and another 17 percent view him favorably — capturing his challenge to quickly define himself with an electorate that isn't familiar with him. Cooper also holds a 19-point edge among independent voters, a significant bloc that supported him during his gubernatorial campaigns. For now, these voters prefer Cooper to Whatley 47 percent to 28 percent. But in a preview of what will be a tight Senate race in a hyper-partisan environment, voters in purple North Carolina are evenly divided on whom they prefer on the generic congressional ballot: 41.5 percent support would back the Democrat and 41.3 percent would back the Republican. In the 2028 presidential primary, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg leads among Democratic voters in North Carolina with 17 percent support. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who opted against a gubernatorial run this week, receives 12 percent, followed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom with 10 percent and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with 7 percent. Nearly a quarter of the Democratic voters are undecided. Among Republicans, Vice President JD Vance dominates the GOP primary with 53 percent backing him, compared to 7 percent for Florida Gov. and failed 2024 presidential candidate Ron DeSantis and 5 percent for Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Emerson College conducted the poll from July 28 through July 30, interviewing 1,000 registered North Carolina voters. It has a 3-point margin of error.
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Sarah McBride has a blunt diagnosis for her party's problems
'I do think that a voter asks two questions when they're considering who to vote for. The first question is, does this candidate, does this party like me? And by extension, do they respect me?' 'If you can't answer that first question to a voter's satisfaction, they won't even get to the second question, which is, what does this party think? What does this candidate think? And I think we lost that first question,' she said. Democrats around the country have been trying to figure out how to regain support from voters after Republicans won control of the White House and both chambers of Congress last year. Democratic leaders have conceded the party has a brand problem, but intraparty debates on party strategy have yet to produce a clear path forward. A Wall Street Journal poll released last week found that 63 percent of voters view the Democratic Party unfavorably — the highest level of unfavorability for the party in a Journal poll since 1990. McBride said she believes the party's brand going forward should focus on working-class people and protecting democracy and stressed again that a core tenant of the party's brand should be 'we're not going to be assholes to voters.' 'I do think that we have to basically create a tent that is united on three fundamental principles,' she said in the interview, which was taped Wednesday. 'One is working people need more support and help. Two, democracy and freedom are good. And three, we're not going to be assholes to voters.' McBride suggested that voters may be forming negative opinions of the party based on online discourse, rather than from party leaders, and that 'the loudest voices online' may be pushing voters away who might otherwise vote for Democrats. 'The reality in today's environment is that your party ecosystem is defined not just by politicians or the party, but also some of the loudest voices online that in voters' minds reflect and represent that broader coalition,' she said. 'When we have an environment where we've got some very loud people who are shaming and calling people who disagree with them — even in rhetoric — bigots, when we have those folks saying that to a wide swath of voters, including voters we could win, and we aren't explicitly stating something to the contrary, then a voter will then just paint us all with one broad brush,' she added. The full interview with McBride is available on Sunday's episode of 'The Conversation.'
