Meet the new Andrew Cuomo
Andrew Cuomo is overhauling his buttoned-up public persona, taking a looser approach to the New York City mayoral campaign and his staid social media presence.
The former governor has launched a series of haymaker attacks on his 33-year-old opponent, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani.
He's employed a slang-inflected, sassy voice in the general election, all directed at Mamdani, who has excelled online.
Cuomo's retooled approach has included taking Mamdani to task for his familial ties to Uganda, living in a rent-regulated apartment and benefiting from well-off parents. A top Cuomo strategist even accused Mamdani — sans irony — of being a 'nepo baby.'
Then there's the Gen Z-sounding language on X, like an appeal to 'lazyweb.'
The strategy underscores the generational fight within the Democratic Party between moderates who leverage traditional campaign tools and digital natives who are increasingly adept at energizing voters online.
There are drawbacks for a well-known candidate like Cuomo trying to fully reinvent himself in such a short amount of time. As the new Cuomo X account might put it: Critics think the approach is sus.
'It's an age of authenticity, which rewards a Donald Trump, rewards a Bernie Sanders and rewards a Zohran,' former Mayor Bill de Blasio, a longtime Cuomo foe, said in an interview. 'Andrew is not giving people a reason to believe. He appears to be trying on different personalities, different messages, in a clinical, cynical manner. Voters see right through it.'
Yet if there's any suggestion Cuomo's campaign has undergone a complete personality transformation, his team's sharp elbows in response to attacks remain.
'Talking about authenticity from a guy who changed his name, dyes his hair and walked the cornfields of Iowa instead of doing his job only to get 0 percent in the polls is rich,' Cuomo spokesperson Rich Azzopardi said in response to the ex-mayor. 'The only thing de Blasio did authentically was drive the city's trajectory into the ground for 8 years, but admittedly, at that he was very good.'
The former governor is trying to address the problems with his lackluster primary campaign — an effort marked by little interaction with voters and the press.
Cuomo is speaking more freely with reporters and his campaign has been documenting his retail politicking with New Yorkers.
He does not enjoy the same institutional support that came his way during the primary, when unions and county Democratic leaders lined up to endorse the comeback bid and an air of inevitability initially propelled his campaign.
But Cuomo is trying to meet Mamdani on the same field of political battle after the state lawmaker successfully leveraged affordability concerns during the primary.
In doing so, he's cast Mamdani as a man of privilege — someone out of step with the real concerns of blue collar New Yorkers.
'Release the lease,' Cuomo demanded Tuesday, to show if Mamdani's parents guaranteed the lease on his rent stabilized Astoria apartment.
Mamdani responded with a video calling on Cuomo to #ReleaseTheCuomoList of his consulting clients — citing POLITICO's reporting.
And Mamdani's fighting fire with fire, resurfacing a tenuous tie to child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, noting that Cuomo ally and business partner Andrew Farkas previously worked with Epstein. The video was first shared with the Post, the local paper with the hungriest appetite for salacious guilt-by-association.
Even before that, consultants were warning that Cuomo's attacks have pitfalls.
'Attacking Zohran for inexperience and for policy positions that are too far left out of the mainstream are still effective attacks,' said Democratic consultant Austin Shafran. 'But personal attacks that reek of hypocrisy won't move the negatives much on Zohran. For every point he scores he's going to lose half a point for throwing stones when he grew up in a glided glass house.'
Read more from POLITICO's Nick Reisman on Cuomo's revamped campaign strategy.
IT'S WEDNESDAY: Got news? Send it our way: Jeff Coltin, Emily Ngo and Nick Reisman.
WHERE'S KATHY? In New York City and Albany chairing a New York Finance Control Board annual meeting.
WHERE'S ERIC? Delivering remarks at Finance Control Board meeting and United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg and North Brooklyn's groundbreaking on social services headquarters.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: 'The biggest question is why should there be a painting of him in Surrogate's Court at all.' — New Kings Democrats spokesperson Bryan Maygers on former Brooklyn Democratic Party Leader Frank Seddio spending $9,200 in campaign funds on a portrait of himself at Brooklyn Surrogate Court where he used to serve as a judge, via the Daily News.
BONUS QUOTE OF THE DAY: 'You must really have a hard-on for me or whoever gave you this stuff. You guys, the Daily News, have to be the biggest assholes in America.' — Seddio, responding to the same story.
ABOVE THE FOLD
ADAMS AND THE CFB: Mayor Eric Adams has started to neutralize the Campaign Finance Board's decision to deny him public matching funds by raising additional cash from private donations, he revealed in an interview with Playbook.
The CFB has repeatedly denied Adams a taxpayer-funded boost to his reelection bid, citing both paperwork deficiencies and the board's belief that the mayor's campaign violated the law.
While that initially left Adams with a $3.5 million hole in his war chest, the mayor said Tuesday he has been raising enough cash to shrink the shortfall to something closer to $1 million.
'I never wait on my destiny to be in the hands of others,' he said. 'I'm going to still work hard and do what I'm supposed to do.'
Campaign finance rules place a spending cap on candidates participating in the public financing system, with hopefuls typically expecting millions of dollars to come from the city's 8-1 public matching program.
Adams suggested Tuesday the CFB's latest denial will end up back in the courts as the subject of another lawsuit filed by his campaign.
'They're moving the goal posts continuously,' Adams said, insisting a defunct federal indictment that accused him of bribery — and was among the reasons cited by the CFB in previous denials — never offered proof he did anything illegal.
'If the courts decide we have a right to get the matching funds, we'll get them,' Adams said. 'If they don't, I have to raise the money based on that. And that's what I'm going to do.'
The CFB declined to comment, but pointed Playbook to a strongly worded statement read aloud during its Aug. 6 meeting.
'The board finds the campaign has provided incomplete and misleading information to the CFB and has impeded the CFB staff's ability to complete its investigation,' Board Chair Frederick Schaffer said, adding that the board had reason to believe Adams broke the law in part because of its own investigation. — Joe Anuta
CITY HALL: THE LATEST
PATERSON FOR ADAMS: Former Gov. David Paterson believes Adams has a shot at turning around his poor poll numbers to win the general election.
It's an increasingly unlikely proposition given the incumbent's single-digit standing in some polls.
But Paterson — who endorsed Cuomo during the Democratic primary — expects the mayor will run a strong campaign and pick up steam next month, so he's formally endorsing him this afternoon on the steps of City Hall.
'There's a path to victory for him,' Paterson told Playbook. 'I would hate to just have sat out the election and he didn't win but moved up and it became a closer margin. People will start assessing how they feel after Labor Day as they usually do. He's really got to put an effort in even beyond what he did in 2021 to turn this around. He's fully capable of doing that.'
Paterson said he had intended to back Adams in the Democratic primary over Cuomo. But then the mayor dropped out of the primary to mount an independent bid.
'He has every right to keep running and last I heard I had a right to endorse him,' Paterson said.
And he disavowed a proposal to have the field coalesce behind the strongest candidate to take on Mamdani — an arrangement that at the moment favors Cuomo.
'Why would it make a difference if the last person in the polls got out of the race?' Paterson said. — Nick Reisman
WHAT CHRISTINE QUINN IS READING: The nonprofit group that manages Central Park formally asked New York City officials to ban horse-drawn carriages from the park, for the first time taking a public stance on an issue that has been politically contentious for years. (The New York Times)
More from the city:
— ICE can no longer hold detained immigrants in cramped quarters and 'abusive conditions' observed on the 10th floor of 26 Federal Plaza, a federal judge ruled. (amNewYork)
— A lawsuit accuses the NYPD of continued aggression at protests over Gaza. (The New York Times)
— Pro-Cuomo super PAC Fix the City has raised $767,500 since the primary, including $100,000 from Walmart heir Alice Walton. (Crain's New York)
NEW FROM PLANET ALBANY
CONGRESS PIPES IN: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and three other New York Democratic representatives want Gov. Kathy Hochul to extend the comment deadline for a gas pipeline project.
The lawmakers say the public, community organizations and experts need more time to weigh in on the Williams Co. Northeast Supply Enhancement project, also known as NESE.
'We share your belief that the public has a fundamental right to evaluate how this project aligns with New York's water quality standards, environmental protection statutes, climate commitments, and public health safeguards,' the Tuesday letter from Jeffries and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jerry Nadler and Nydia Velázquez states. 'Providing additional time for public input would reinforce the transparency and public trust that are hallmarks of the state's permitting process.'
The pipeline would bring more natural gas into the New York City area, crossing the Raritan Bay on its route from New Jersey. The project was rejected under Cuomo and its revival is backed by President Donald Trump. White House officials said Hochul agreed to consider new pipelines in exchange for the resumption of work on an offshore wind project. Hochul's office has said there is no deal. The governor has signaled openness to considering the project to lower utility bills, however.
The project needs both state and federal approvals. The Department of Environmental Conservation is overseeing the state permitting, including a key water quality review. The deadline for comments is this Saturday. That's 45 days since DEC requested comments. The House members want a 120 comment period and public hearings on the project. — Marie J. French
More from Albany:
— Certain criteria used to award licenses to open cannabis businesses in the state are very likely unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled. (The New York Times)
— The state budget is being spared some pain for now even as federal cuts loom. (The City)
— Hochul won't support tax hikes to address those spending cuts. (Capitol Confidential)
KEEPING UP WITH THE DELEGATION
GUN SAFETY PUSH: Jeffries and Nadler are leading New York House Democrats in a call for their GOP counterparts to co-sponsor background checks legislation as a bloc by Aug. 28, one month after the fatal mass shooting in midtown Manhattan.
'Importantly, this bill would make no changes for New Yorkers' access to firearms as New York already has a strong universal state background law,' the Democrats write in a letter of the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) 'The bill would reduce the flow of guns trafficked into New York and used by felons, domestic abusers and those with mental illnesses who are a danger to themselves or others.'
The bill currently has 205 co-sponsors in the House, but just one is a Republican.
The letter signed by 13 New York House Democrats — plus Thompson — is addressed to the state's seven House Republicans. — Emily Ngo
More from the delegation:
— Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer plans a September bill to reverse cuts to Social Security. (Spectrum News)
— Inside Jeffries' annual California fundraising event. (Axios)
— The NRCC mocked Jeffries for failing to meet a self-imposed deadline to roll out a new vision for America with a Democratic-controlled House. (Fox News)
NEW YORK STATE OF MIND
— Climate Action Council members are calling for a delay of renewable energy targets. (POLITICO Pro)
— Electric bills are up this summer and it's not just because of the heat. (LoHud)
— A parishioners' abuse suit could have major consequences for the Buffalo Diocese. (Buffalo News)
SOCIAL DATA
MAKING MOVES: Kyle Ishmael and Derrick Davis have joined Mamdani's campaign as political engagement directors. Ishmael's Back Chamber consulting was previously on Adrienne Adams' mayoral campaign and he is the executive director of the Manhattan Democratic Party, while Davis runs Bellwether Consulting Strategies and is chief of staff to state Sen. Leroy Comrie … Cheryl Watts of Community Voices Heard has also joined Mamdani's campaign as faith communities manager … Abby Paulson has joined Fordham University as its first Washington-based director of federal relations. She previously held the same role for George Washington University.
— Sen. Chuck Schumer has appointed social media influencer and Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg — who once brutalized him in a video for caving in to Trump — to the America 250 Commission. (@SenSchumer on X)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY: Assemblymember Latrice Walker … Queens County Clerk Audrey Pheffer … Seth Pollack … NYSERDA's Lauren Bailey … Shenker Russo & Clark's Jill Sandhaas … Marino's Lee Silberstein … Capalino's Tim Kucha … McBride's Gregory Lavine … ANBA's Marcos Salazar … Angelica Katz of Susan G. Komen … Brent Weitzberg … acting CFTC Chair Caroline Pham … Karine Jean-Pierre … former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen … Kristalina Georgieva … Addy Baird … Andrew Malkin … Chris Dhanaraj ... Emily Myerson … Bloomberg's Joanna Ossinger … AP's Kelly Daschle … Margot Roosevelt … Josh Romney.
Missed Tuesday's New York Playbook PM? We forgive you. Read it here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Social Security has existed for 90 years. Why it may be more threatened than ever.
Just as it has for decades, Social Security faces a looming shortfall in money to pay full benefits. Since President Trump took office the program has faced more tumult. Agency staffing has been slashed. Unions and advocacy groups concerned about sharing sensitive information have sued. Trump administration officials including the president for months falsely claimed millions of dead people were receiving Social Security benefits. Former top adviser Elon Musk called the program a potential 'Ponzi scheme.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump and other Republicans have said they will not cut Social Security benefits. Yet the program remains far from the sound economic system that FDR envisioned 90 years ago, due to changes made — and not made — under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Advertisement Here's a look at past and current challenges to Social Security, the proposed solutions and what it could take to shore up the program. The go-broke date has been moved up The so-called go-broke date — or the date at which Social Security will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — has been moved up to 2034, instead of last year's estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits, according to an annual report released in June. The earlier date came as new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, the report concluded. Advertisement The Social Security Fairness Act, signed into law by former President Joe Biden and enacted in January, had an impact. It repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions, increasing Social Security benefit levels for former public workers. Republicans' new tax legislation signed into law in July will accelerate the insolvency of Social Security, said Brendan Duke at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'They haven't laid out an idea to fix it yet,' he said. The privatization conversation has been revived The notion of privatizing Social Security surfaced most recently when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month said new tax-deferred investment accounts dubbed " Trump accounts " may serve as a " backdoor to privatization," though Treasury has walked back those comments. The public has been widely against the idea of privatizing Social Security since former President George W. Bush embarked on a campaign to pitch privatization of the program in 2005, through voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan was not well-received by the public. Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University professor and top economist in Bush's White House, told The Associated Press that Social Security needs to be reduced in size in order to maintain benefits for generations to come. He supports limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. 'We will have to make a choice,' Hubbard said. 'If you want Social Security benefits to look like they are today, we're going to have to raise everyone's taxes a lot. And if that's what people want, that's a menu, and you pay the high price and you move on.' Advertisement Another option would be to increase minimum benefits and slow down benefit growth for everyone else, which Hubbard said would right the ship without requiring big tax increases, if it's done over time. 'It's really a political choice,' he said, adding 'Neither one of those is pain free.' Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the preservation of Social Security benefits, is more worried that the administration of benefits could be privatized under Trump, rather than a move toward privatized accounts. The agency cut more than 7,000 from its workforce this year as part of the Department of Government Efficiency's effort to reduce the size of the government. Martin O'Malley, who was Social Security agency commissioner under Biden, said he thinks the problems go deeper. 'There is no openness and there is no transparency' at the agency, he said. 'And we hear about field offices teetering on the brink of collapse.' A Social Security Administration representative didn't respond to a request for comment. Concerns persist An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in April found that an increasing share of older Americans — particularly Democrats — support the program but aren't confident the benefit will be available to them when they retire. 'So much of what we hear is that its running out of money,' said Becky Boober, 70, from Rockport, Maine, who recently retired after decades in public service. She relies on Social Security to keep her finances afloat, is grateful for the program and thinks it should be expanded. 'In my mind there are several easy fixes that are not a political stretch,' she said. They include raising the income tax cap on high-income earners and possibly raising the retirement age, which is currently 67 for people born after 1960, though she is less inclined to support that change. Advertisement Some call for shrinking the program Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the Project 2025 blueprint for Trump's second term. It called for an increase in the retirement age. Greszler says Social Security no longer serves its intended purpose of being a social safety net for low-income seniors and is far too large. She supports pursuing privatization, which includes allowing retirees to put their Social Security taxes into a personal investment account. She also argues for shrinking the program to a point where every retiree would receive the same Social Security benefit so long as they worked the same number of years, which she argues would increase benefits for the bottom one-third of earners. How this would impact middle-class earners is unclear. 'When talking about needing to reform the system, we need to reform it so that we don't have indiscriminate 23% across the board cuts for everybody,' Greszler said. 'We need to reform the system in a more thoughtful way, so that we are protecting those who are most vulnerable and reliant on Social Security.'
New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
Wild video shows Dems pick for SC gov. race being arrested in his underwear while calling himself God and Superman
Wild, newly released dash cam footage shows the Democrat's choice to run for governor in South Carolina getting arrested recently in just his underwear — with him swearing and using the n-word while referring to himself as both God and Superman. Married father-of-four William 'Mullins' McLeod, 53, is facing calls from his own party to step down from the gubernatorial race he only formally entered Monday after video emerged a day later of his bizarre arrest just months earlier in May, according to WCBD. The prominent attorney was stopped in downtown Charleston while 'yelling at the top of his lungs' wearing only underwear and shoes, according to a police report — which suggested he showed signs 'typical of an individual under the influence of a stimulant narcotic.' Advertisement The Dem referred to his upcoming election race — even threatening to kick an opponent's 'f–king teeth in' — while refusing to tell cops his name, instead referring to himself as God and Superman, the hour-long video released through a Freedom of Information Act request shows. 3 South Carolina gubernatorial Dem, Mullins McLeod, is facing calls from his own party to drop out of the 2026 race after video emerged of his bizarre behavior when arrested in his underwear. McLeod for South Carolina 'It doesn't matter, my friend, trust me,' he told one officer when asked his name. 'I'm one of the most just humans to ever walk this soil,' he said. Advertisement 'Superman sounds good,' he added, bizarrely. McLeod, who only entered the Democratic race for Governor in the Palmetto State on Monday, also issued threats toward current and former South Carolina politicians during the profanity-laden rant. 'I'm gonna kick your f–king teeth in,' he says at one point, appearing to reference Republican Attorney General Alan Wilson, who announced his bid for governor earlier this summer. 3 McLeod launched his campaign to be governor earlier this week. McLeod for South Carolina Advertisement McLeod — who is heard uttering the n-word at least twice in the video — also refuses to get out of the patrol car when it arrives at the jail, instead telling an officer he would sleep in the back seat. 'No, I'm not doing it, no. I'm not getting out of this car. It's time to go to bed,' he shouts at the officer, before being forcibly removed and booked into the jail shortly before 1 a.m., according to an arrest report retrieved by WCBD. McLeod's eyes were 'extremely bloodshot and highly dilated … typical of an individual under the influence of a stimulant narcotic,' according to the report. It wasn't immediately clear whether McLeod — who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2010 and served two terms as Charleston County Democratic Party chairman — was tested for drugs during his arrest. Advertisement 3 McLeod branded his arrest unlawful. McLeod for South Carolina He is currently facing misdemeanor charges for disorderly conduct. His party leadership is calling on him to step down from the gubernatorial race, in which he is currently the party's only candidate. 'After reviewing the transcript of the dash cam footage from his recent arrest, it is clear that Mr. McLeod is navigating profound challenges and should focus on his mental and emotional well-being instead of a campaign for governor,' the chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, Christale Spain, said in a statement Wednesday. 'We offer him compassion and pray he finds the support he needs.' McLeod's campaign team did not respond immediately to requests for comment, but he branded his arrest 'unlawful' in a recent interview announcing his candidacy. 'The only thing I'd ask the voters is to please give me a little bit of grace and know that long before we go to election day, they'll know exactly what happened,' he told the Post and Courier. 'And when they learn what happened around my unlawful arrest, it will be a reason why I absolutely need to be our state's governor,' he said, adding that he had been exercising his 'God-given, constitutional right to be in a public place' when he was arrested.
Time Magazine
14 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
How to Fix America's Gerrymandering Problem
President Donald Trump has thrust the country into a new political battle: mutually assured gerrymandering. And the antidote is what we call 'mutually assured representation.' The current saga began in June, when Trump called for Texas to start a congressional redistricting process in the middle of the decade—rather than after the next census in 2030. Last month, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to replace the state's current House map which would favor his party. Now, Trump's push for mid-decade redistricting in Republican-controlled states appears likely to spread to Missouri, Ohio, and Florida. If this happens, Democrats would have retaliate in the states they control in order to have a chance at winning a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives in 2026. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has declared her readiness to 'fight fire with fire.' In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed holding a special election in November for voters to approve a ballot initiative allowing the legislature to redraw the state's congressional map. Read More: 'Time to Stand Down': Newsom Gives Trump Deadline to Call Off Redistricting Plan In Texas, Republicans are claiming that they are entitled to five more congressional seats—even if they receive the exact same number of votes as before. To achieve this, they can redraw the boundaries of the districts that Democrats won in 2024, moving Democratic voters into heavily Republican districts where their votes will not matter, and moving Republican voters into previously Democratic districts so that they can win these seats. In 2024, Republicans in Texas won 25 of the state's 38 seats, and Democrats won 13. With this new map, Republicans could win in 30 of 38 congressional districts. The proposed gerrymander is likely to give Republicans four or five new seats even if Democrats win substantially more votes for Congress than they did in 2025. According to our calculation, this will happen even if there is a five percentage point swing towards Democrats in the 2026 elections. In recent years, just a few congressional seats have determined control of the House, and a flip of just five seats on its own might determine the national result. Partisan gerrymandering makes it harder for voters to hold their representatives accountable. Congressional district elections become uncompetitive. With reelection in the general assured, candidates are focused on catering to their own party base, which tends to be a more extreme subset of their constituents. Through this process, partisan gerrymandering often reduces effective representation in Congress and can play a role in crowding out moderate and independent voters. But here's a twist: President Trump's new wave of extreme gerrymandering may actually backfire, paving the way for electoral reform. Partisan gerrymandering is unpopular with voters, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years. Voters in states such as Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, and New Jersey, have supported nonpartisan redistricting commissions. In 2021, Democrats tried and failed to pass the For the People Act, a bill that would have limited partisan gerrymandering nationwide and implemented non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state. But Republican senators blocked the bill. Gerrymandering reform often fails because only one party makes the necessary reforms. For instance, previous successful anti-gerrymandering measures in states like California and New York created fairer maps in each state—but actually cost the party in power (Democrats in both instances) more seats than the margin determining control of the House in 2024. One proposed solution is bipartisan redistricting commissions. These can fail when the parties cannot agree on a map. For instance, the Virginia commission deadlocked in 2022, leaving the courts to draw the maps. Then there are more radical solutions that effectively blow up the current electoral system as we know it, such as multi-member districts or aproportional representation. But we think it is unrealistic to get rid of a system that has been in place for two hundred and fifty years. Instead, we believe it is possible to make reforms that keep the current electoral system while also overcoming some of its flaws. We've developed a process-based solution that has a number of appealing properties. It's inspired by the problem parents face when dividing a cake between two children. How can they make sure everyone gets an equal slice? One child cuts the cake in two, and the other child chooses between the two pieces. Our approach, which we call the 'Define-Combine Procedure,' splits the map drawing process into two simple stages. First, one party divides the state into twice the number of needed districts—for example, 20 sub-districts for a state that needs 10 congressional seats. Then, the second party pairs those sub-districts into the final 10 districts. The result is a fairer map than either party would have drawn on its own. Instead of mutually assured gerrymandering, this approach leads to mutually assured representation. Read More: Gerrymandering Isn't New—But Now We Have a Solution We used real-world census and election data from 2020 in each state to forecast the results of extreme partisan gerrymandering and the Define-Combine Procedure in every state. In Texas, Republicans could draw a map where they won 30 of 38 congressional seats. If Democrats could unilaterally gerrymander Texas, they could create a map with 28 Democratic and 10 Republican seats. Depending on party control of redistricting in Texas, a whopping 20 seats could change hands. When we used the Define-Combine Procedure, the resulting map would produce 19 Republicans seats and 17 Democratic seats, with the two remaining seats changing hands depending on which party defines and which combines. This result comes much closer to the 53% of the two-party vote that Republicans won in 2020. Scaling nationwide, we estimate that extreme gerrymandering could determine which party holds almost 200 seats, out of the 435 seats in the House. Processes like ours could reduce the advantage that a party can earn just from drawing a map, with outcomes that are less biased and closer to proportional. The trick here is to use the impulse to score more seats for your party as a tool for fairness instead. It's a partisan solution for a partisan problem. One party alone cannot protect voting rights and ensure fair representation. That's why, in 1965, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Voting Rights Act—and why they continued to amend and renew it for the next 40 years. But, a series of Supreme Court decisions over the last 12 years have substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act and allowed states to engage in extreme partisan gerrymandering. Now, a case before the court next year is likely to further diminish its remaining provisions. Instead of settling for mutually assured gerrymandering, with less effective representation, reduced accountability, and uncompetitive elections, both parties should unite behind solutions that achieve fairer outcomes nationwide. Such an outcome seems unrealistic right now as tit-for-tat gerrymandering ramps up, but the moment when the dust settles and voters take stock of the damage done may well be the best opportunity to address the scourge of partisan gerrymandering. If we don't seize this opportunity, America will pay the price.
