Historic Loss of Congressional Seats Looms Amidst California Redistricting Clash
In the mid-20th century, California emerged as a cornerstone of Democratic Party political power. Each decade brought a population boom, and with it, a growing voice in Washington. Between 1950 and 1990, the state gained an average of six new seats in the U.S. House of Representatives per apportionment cycle, largely due to a wave of migration, economic growth and national influence.But now, that era is ending. According to new projections, the state could lose as many as four seats in the 2030 apportionment — a stunning reversal that would mark the largest single-decade loss in its history.The latest data from the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC), and the American Redistricting Project all forecast a significant decline in California's representation. At the same time, red states like Texas and Florida are poised to gain up to four seats each — a shift that could bolster Republican power in Congress and further weaken California's influence in federal policymaking.At the heart of California's historic slowdown is a substantial shift in demographics. High housing costs, pandemic-era shifts to remote work and the outmigration of working families and retirees have contributed to a population drop of more than 412,000 people between 2020 and 2023.
This decline has significant political consequences. Analysis by the San Francisco Chronicle shows that California's Democratic strongholds are shrinking fastest. From 2020 to 2023, California districts that leaned more than 20 points to the left of the national average lost the most residents, while Republican-leaning districts gained residents.As California's political clout shrinks, Governor Gavin Newsom is escalating a partisan standoff with Texas, where state Republicans are already attempting to redraw congressional maps. Texas Governor Greg Abbott called a special session to approve new, more favorable GOP districts.Newsom, in response, floated a bold countermove:'Two can play that game,' Newsom wrote on X, indicating that he may try to redraw California's maps to benefit Democrats, despite the state's laws against partisan gerrymandering.
Newsom's idea has split Democrats. Some strategists argue that redistricting is now a tool for political survival — a necessary counter to GOP tactics. Others are warning of legal and moral concerns."[By] legitimizing the race to the bottom of gerrymandering, Democrats will ultimately lose," said Assemblymember Alex Lee, the head of the California Legislature's Progressive Caucus, to Politico.California's redistricting authority currently rests with an independent citizen commission, created by voters through a 2010 ballot measure. Upending that structure would likely require a constitutional amendment, and could trigger legal challenges — especially if the effort is seen as a power grab, rather than a policy adjustment.Still, some experts argue that Newsom has little to lose."Maps that are really pretty good for Dems are still in place," said redistricting expert Paul Mitchell to the Sacramento Bee. "There's no downside to trying."But if California does lose four seats, the pressure will mount on Democrats to decide whether to double down on fair maps and risk falling behind, or to embrace the political hardball they've long criticized. Either way, the outcome could reshape the national balance of power for years to come.
This story was originally reported by L.A. Mag on Jul 22, 2025, where it first appeared.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Calls For Full Peace Agreement To End Ukraine War
U.S. President Donald Trump (R) greets Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on August 15, 2025 in Anchorage, Alaska. The two leaders are meeting for peace talks aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. Credit - Andrew Harnik—Getty Images President Donald Trump has called for talks aimed at achieving a full peace agreement to end the war in Ukraine, rather than a ceasefire, in a major shift that puts him at odds with U.S. allies in Europe and Kyiv. "It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump posted on Truth Social following a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. Trump's position on negotiations over the war now aligns more closely with the Kremlin, which has been pushing for a comprehensive agreement instead of a ceasefire. Ukraine and European leaders have insisted that peace talks cannot take place without a ceasefire agreement first being agreed upon. Read more: Why Trump's Summit in Alaska Cannot End Putin's War in Ukraine Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Saturday that he had spoken to Trump following the summit and emphasized the need for a ceasefire, but did not outright counter Trump's desire for a full peace deal: 'A real peace must be achieved, one that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions,' Zelensky wrote on X, though he continued. 'Killings must stop as soon as possible, the fire must cease both on the battlefield and in the sky, as well as against our port infrastructure.' Speaking alongside Zelensky at a press conference on Wednesday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also emphasized the 'right sequence' for negotiations: 'We want a ceasefire at the very beginning, and then a framework agreement must be drawn up.' Talks will continue on Monday afternoon when Zelensky visits the White House. The hope, Trump says, is to set up another call with Putin after that meeting. "If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved," Trump added in his post. Trump's shift comes after the 'high-stakes' meeting between Putin and Trump at a summit in Alaska— the first in-person encounter between the two leaders since 2019—which ended with no concrete move toward a ceasefire deal, despite this being a main aim of the meeting. Contact us at letters@


Washington Post
29 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Key takeaways from Trump's summit with Putin and dramatic ceasefire reversal
The highly-anticipated summit between President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday concluded earlier than expected, with an awkward press appearance and no formal deal. But it marked a PR victory for Putin on the world stage — and, in a surprise announcement hours later, Trump dropped his demand for a ceasefire, saying Russia and Ukraine should start agreeing on a final peace deal instead.


Washington Post
29 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump's incomplete Alaska summit
President Donald Trump arrived at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on Friday with a clear goal: extract a ceasefire agreement from Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, the Russian president came to Alaska not to end his war against Ukraine but to avoid expanded economic sanctions. Although only one side got what it initially wanted, what happens in the coming days will be more consequential. 'We've made some headway,' Trump told the press after talks ended early. Contradicting Putin's earlier assertion that they had reached an agreement, Trump added that 'there's no deal until there's a deal.' The two did not take questions. In an interview with Fox News, Trump declined to disclose the biggest sticking point, which nevertheless seems to have been his desire for a ceasefire. Yet the president is plowing ahead. 'It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up,' Trump posted Saturday morning on Truth Social. That followed a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who will fly to Washington for a visit with Trump in the Oval Office on Monday. Trump and Zelensky are open to trilateral meeting after that. Is Putin? The key for Zelensky in the coming days is to ensure that Moscow, not Kyiv, is rightly blamed for any lack of progress. That means maintaining an openness to negotiations and not being baited into public debating, like in their last Oval Office meeting. Despite the summit's inconclusive end, Trump and Zelensky reportedly discussed security guarantees that ought to be appealing to the vulnerable nation. Indeed, the core Ukrainian goal remains to survive the current onslaught while ensuring Ukrainian sovereignty for the long haul. Praising Trump's acumen and showing an openness to dealing with Putin is a morally unsatisfying but necessary approach for Zelensky — especially if he can win promises to deter a future invasion once hostilities end. For weeks, Trump had threatened secondary sanctions that would prevent countries such as India and China from buying fossil fuels from Putin's regime. Such sanctions crippled Iran's already fragile economy during Trump's first term and would have a material effect on the Russian war machine. Oil and gas revenue account for around a third of the country's federal budget, which is increasingly strained. Our preference is to impose sanctions now. We understand the worry that this would blow up negotiations, but the bigger risk is that Putin believes he can string along talks to avoid punishment, as Iran did during Joe Biden's presidency. Putin is driven by the logic of power and force, not diplomatic niceties. If the White House really believes a deal is close, the least the administration can do is outline exactly what penalties Putin should expect if he does not sit for a trilateral meeting — and what will come if that meeting does not produce tangible results. This would place the onus on Putin to take negotiations seriously while making it easier to swiftly impose them if talks fall apart. Criticism of Trump for meeting with Putin doesn't quite land. Like it or not, the Russian strongman is firmly in power and remains the driving force behind the war. Trump's praise of hostile leaders is too often over-the-top, but this summit doesn't permanently bring Putin into the civilized world. Recall that Trump met Kim Jong Un three times; the North Korean dictator got some propaganda photos, but he remains isolated. The real danger now is not that Putin gets a small public-relations victory but that he continues his war without further consequences. Despite his unorthodox approach, Trump demonstrated a clear-eyed understanding of American interests when dealing with Iran and North Korea. In the end, he was willing to increase pressure and walk away from bad deals. The time for that might not have come yet, but it is fast approaching.