North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong brings a hunter's mindset to the governor's office
"My wife would use the word 'addiction,' " Armstrong said. "And my favorite thing to hunt is ... 'What season is next?' "
A first-term governor who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2019 until last year, Armstrong stopped by the Grand Forks Herald office Thursday, May 15. While the purpose of the visit
was to talk about the recently wrapped-up session of the Legislature,
the governor also discussed hunting, fishing and some of the challenges and opportunities the outdoors faces in North Dakota.
"I always say we're not the best at anything, but we're the best at everything," Armstrong said, referring to North Dakota's abundance of outdoors opportunities. "There's still not a lot of places that you can go shoot a limit of pheasant, grouse, partridge, mallards, geese, whitetail, mule deer — all of the above. You can do it 100 miles from the governor's residence."
One of the most publicized outdoors-related bills during the legislative session was SB 2137, which prohibits the Game and Fish Department from restricting the practice of baiting for big game hunting on private land in hunting units with confirmed cases of chronic wasting disease.
Game and Fish historically has banned baiting for deer on private land in hunting units within 25 miles of a confirmed positive CWD case. The highly contagious brain disease is fatal to deer, elk and moose, and minimizing the chances of bringing animals into close contact has been a standard practice wildlife managers use to mitigate the risk.
The "baiting bill," as it was commonly called,
passed the House by a 56-34 vote, and Armstrong signed it
Thursday, April 17. Baiting remains illegal for hunting on public land.
"I think one of the things North Dakota always has to be conscious of is we don't have a lot of public land," Armstrong said. "I always viewed (baiting) as a private property right."
Considering only about 9% of North Dakota land is public land, support from private landowners is crucial to the future of hunting and access in the state, he said.
That's why he signed the bill. All the "habitat in the world" doesn't mean much without access to private land, Armstrong said. The legislation sunsets in 2029.
"We don't have outdoor heritage if we don't have buy-in from landowners because we don't have a lot of federal land, we don't have a lot of state land," Armstrong said. "We'll monitor and watch it. If we start seeing a spike (in CWD), we'll have to sit down and look at it.
Game and Fish tested 1,456 animals for CWD
during the 2024 sampling season, and 17 tested positive — 15 taken by hunters and two "clinical deer" that were confirmed through diagnostic examination. That brings the total of positive cases to 122 since 2009, when CWD was first detected in North Dakota.
In December, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department hosted a Habitat and Hunting Access Summit in Bismarck. Armstrong, just days into his first term as governor, spoke at the summit.
Gone are the days when North Dakota had more than 3 million acres of land enrolled in the federal Conservation Reserve Program. As CRP contracts expire, wildlife habitat is less abundant, and wildlife populations — especially white-tailed deer — are struggling and less resilient to severe winters and diseases such as the EHD (epizootic hemorrhagic disease) outbreak that
decimated deer numbers in some areas in 2021.
North Dakota today has less than 1 million acres of land enrolled in CRP, and 85% of the acreage enrolled during the peak in 2007 could be gone by 2026 if contracts continue to expire at their current rate,
Game and Fish biologist Doug Leier reported this week
in his weekly "North Dakota Outdoors" column.
The summit was the first step in what promises to be a slow, challenging process to address access and the loss of habitat. Whatever direction any potential solutions ultimately take, farmers and ranchers must be on board, Armstrong says.
There are no easy answers.
"If you don't start with the ag groups and the actual farmers and ranchers about what works for them ... what works for sportsmen and what works for the guy making a living off that land every day of the week aren't always the same thing," Armstrong said. "I think the low-hanging fruit, me personally — youth deer, youth pheasant, youth duck — I think you have to be a pretty (difficult) guy to say no to a 14-year-old kid who wants to shoot his first whitetail doe or her first pheasant or first duck. I think there are opportunities to do this."
Game and Fish recently announced it will offer 42,300 licenses for this fall's deer gun season — a near 50-year low — down from more than 100,000 for several years during the peak of CRP.
In some ways, North Dakota is losing its "deer camp culture," Armstrong says. CWD and baiting isn't the issue, he says, it's EHD and two bad winters.
"We have way too many people chasing inches instead of chasing experience," he said, referring to the size of a buck's rack. "I can tell you, looking back on all of my favorite deer hunts, I don't care how big the deer was. I don't look back 20 years ago and have a more fond experience because it was a 156-inch deer vs. a 142-inch deer."
Trapshooting has become one of the fastest-growing high school sports in North Dakota and nationwide, but "less and less" of the kids shooting trap are actually hunting, Armstrong says, a trend that presents both a challenge and an opportunity.
"How we can figure out how to (get kids hunting) also happens to be a pretty good workforce recruitment and retention tool," Armstrong said. "If you're 17 years old and love to hunt and fish, the chances of you staying in North Dakota at 35 are higher than if you don't" hunt and fish.
While Armstrong says he's not an avid angler, the quality of fishing available in North Dakota is another piece of "low-hanging fruit," in terms of outdoors opportunities.
"For as much criticism as Game and Fish gets — and a lot of it isn't deserved — we spend a lot of time talking about Devils Lake, Sakakawea and the Missouri River, but there are tons of the little fisheries out there that are (anglers') secret spots," he said.
As for hunting, Armstrong says he looks forward to spending more time in the field as governor than he did as North Dakota's representative in Congress.
Regardless, he says, it won't be enough.
"No hunter on his deathbed ever said, 'Man, I really wish I would have hunted less,' " Armstrong said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
5 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democratic plans emerge to reshape California's congressional delegation and thwart Trump
A decade and a half after California voters stripped lawmakers of the ability to draw the boundaries of congressional districts, Gov. Gavin Newsom and fellow Democrats are pushing to take that partisan power back. The redistricting plan taking shape in Sacramento and headed toward voters in November could shift the Golden State's political landscape for at least six years, if not longer, and sway which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections — which will be pivotal to the fate of President Trump's political agenda. What Golden State voters choose to do will reverberate nationwide, killing some political careers and launching others, provoking other states to reconfigure their own congressional districts and boosting Gov. Gavin Newsom's profile as a top Trump nemesis and leader of the nation's Democratic resistance. The new maps, drawn by Democratic strategists and lawmakers behind closed doors, were expected to be submitted to legislative leaders by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and widely leaked on Friday. They are expected to appear on a Nov. 4 special election ballot, along with a constitutional amendment that would override the state's voter-approved, independent redistricting commission. The changes would ripple across hundreds of miles of California, from the forests near the Oregon state line through the deserts of Death Valley and Palm Springs to the U.S.-Mexico border, expanding Democrats' grip on California and further isolating Republicans. The proposed map would concentrate Republican voters in a handful of deep-red districts and eliminate an Inland Empire congressional seat represented by the longest-serving member of California's GOP delegation. For Democrats, the plans would boost the fortunes of up-and-coming politicians and shore up vulnerable incumbents in Congress, including two new lawmakers who won election by fewer than 1,000 votes last fall. 'This is the final declaration of political war between California and the Trump administration,' said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego. For the state to reverse the independent redistricting process that the electorate approved in 2010, a majority of California voters would have to approve the measure, which backers are calling the 'Election Rigging Response Act.' The state Legislature, where Democrats hold a supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate, will consider the ballot language next week when lawmakers return from summer recess. Both chambers would need to pass the ballot language by a two-thirds majority and get the bill to Newsom's desk by Aug. 22, leaving just enough time for voter guides to be mailed and ballots to be printed. The ballot language has not been released. But the decision about approving the new map would ultimately be up to the state's electorate, which backed independent redistricting in 2010 by more than 61%. Registered Democrats outnumber Republican voters by almost a two-to-one margin in California, providing a decided advantage for supporters of the measure. Newsom has said that the measure would include a 'trigger,' meaning the state's maps would only take effect if a Republican state — including Texas, Florida and Indiana — approve new mid-decade maps. 'There's still an exit ramp,' Newsom said. 'We're hopeful they don't move forward.' Explaining the esoteric concept of redistricting and getting voters to participate in an off-year election will require that Newsom and his allies, including organized labor, launch what is expected to be an expensive campaign very quickly. 'It's summer in California,' Kousser said. 'People are not focused on this.' California has no limit on campaign contributions for ballot measures, and a measure that pits Democrats against Trump, and Republicans against Newsom, could become a high-stakes, high-cost national brawl. 'It's tens of millions of dollars, and it's going to be determined on the basis of what an opposition looks like as well,' Newsom said Thursday. The fundraising effort, he said, is 'not insignificant... considering the 90-day sprint.' The ballot measure's campaign website mentions three major funding sources thus far: Newsom's gubernatorial campaign, the main political action committee for House Democrats in Washington, and Manhattan Beach businessman Bill Bloomfield, a longtime donor to California Democrats. Those who oppose the mid-decade redistricting are also expected to be well-funded, and will argue that this effort betrays the will of the voters who approved independent congressional redistricting in 2010. Control of the U.S. House of Representatives hangs in the balance. The party that holds the White House tends to lose House seats during the midterm election. Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House, and Democrats taking control of chamber in 2026 would stymie Trump's controversial, right-wing agenda in his final two years in office. Redistricting typically only happens once a decade, after the U.S. Census. But Trump has been prodding Republican states, starting with Texas, to redraw their lines in the middle of the decade to boost the GOP's chances in the midterms. At Trump's encouragement, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to redraw the Texas congressional map to favor five more Republicans. In response, Newsom and other California Democrats have called for their own maps that would favor five more Democrats. Texas Democratic lawmakers fled the state to deny the legislature a quorum and stop the vote. They faced daily fines, death threats and calls to be removed from office. They agreed to return to Austin after the special session ended on Friday, with one condition being that California Democrats moved forward with their redistricting plan. The situation has the potential to spiral into an all-out redistricting arms race, with Trump leaning on Indiana, Florida, Ohio and Missouri to redraw their maps, while Newsom is asking the same of blue states including New York and Illinois. The California gerrymandering plan targets five of California's nine Republican members of Congress: Reps. Kevin Kiley and Doug LaMalfa in Northern California, Rep. David Valadao in the Central Valley, and Reps. Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa in Southern California. The map consolidates Republican voters into a smaller number of ruby-red districts known as 'vote sinks.' Some conservative and rural areas would be shifted into districts where Republican voters would be diluted by high voter registration advantage for Democrats. The biggest change would be for Calvert, who would see his Inland Empire district eliminated. Calvert has been in Congress since 1992 and represents a sprawling Riverside County district that includes Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Palm Springs and his home base of Corona. Calvert, who oversees defense spending on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, comfortably won reelection last year despite a well-funded national campaign by Democrats. Under the proposed map, the Inland Empire district would be carved up and redistributed, parceled out to a district represented by Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills). Liberal Palm Springs would be shifted into the district represented by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), which would help tilt the district from Republican to a narrowly divided swing seat. Members of Congress are not required to live in their districts, but there would not be an obvious seat for Calvert to run for, unless he ran against Kim or Issa. Leaked screenshots of the map began to circulate Friday afternoon, prompting fierce and immediate pushback from California Republicans. The lines are 'third-world dictator stuff,' Orange County GOP chair Will O'Neill said on X, and the 'slicing and dicing of Orange County cities is obscene.' In Northern California, the boundaries of Kiley's district would shrink and dogleg into the Sacramento suburbs to add registered Democrats. Kiley said in a post on the social media site X that he expected his district to stay the same because voters would 'defeat Newsom's sham initiative and vindicate the will of California voters.' LaMalfa's district would shift south, away from the rural and conservative areas along the Oregon border, and pick up more liberal areas in parts of Sonoma County, In Central California, boundaries would shift to shore up Reps. Josh Harder (D-Tracy) and Adam Gray (D-Merced). Gray won election last year by 187 votes, the narrowest margin in the country. Valadao, a perennial target for Democrats, would see the northern boundary of his district stretch into the bluer suburbs of Fresno. Democrats have tried for years to unseat Valadao, who represents a district that has a strong Democratic voter registration advantage on paper, but where turnout among blue voters is lackluster. The maps include a new congressional seat in Los Angeles County that would stretch through the southeast cities of Downey, Santa Fe Springs, Whittier and Lakewood. An open seat in Congress is a rare opportunity for politicians, especially in deep-blue Los Angeles County, where incumbent lawmakers can keep their jobs for decades. Portions of that district were once represented by retired U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, the first Mexican American woman elected to Congress. That seat was eliminated in the 2021 redistricting cycle, when California lost a congressional seat for the first time in its history. Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis has told members of the California Congressional delegation that she is thinking about running for the new seat. Another possible contender, former Assembly speaker Anthony Rendon of Lakewood, launched a campaign for state superintendent of schools in late July and may be out of the mix. Other lawmakers who represent the area or areas nearby include State Sen. Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), state Sen. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) and state Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier). In Northern California, the southern tip of LaMalfa's district would stretch south into the Sonoma County cities of Santa Rosa and Healdsberg, home to Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire. McGuire will be termed out of the state Senate next year, and the new seat might present a prime opportunity for him to go to Washington.
Time Business News
6 hours ago
- Time Business News
Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the Legislative Frontlines
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has built a reputation in Congress as a determined advocate for civil rights, healthcare reform, and public safety. Representing Florida in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2005, she has consistently championed legislation that addresses the needs of vulnerable communities while working to strengthen the nation's democratic values. Throughout her career, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been a strong defender of civil rights. She has taken bold positions on issues ranging from voting rights to LGBTQ equality. As a member of Congress, she has supported legislation aimed at expanding voter access, opposing discriminatory practices, and ensuring that every citizen has an equal voice in the democratic process. Her advocacy extends to protecting religious and ethnic minorities. Most recently, she has been at the forefront of efforts to create a national strategy to combat antisemitism, working across party lines to address the rise in hate crimes and extremist rhetoric. She views these initiatives not only as a matter of protecting one community, but as a fundamental defense of American democracy. For Debbie Wasserman Schultz, healthcare reform has always been more than a talking point. A breast cancer survivor herself, she has been a leading voice for policies that expand access to preventive care and early detection services. Her leadership on the EARLY Act has helped fund breast cancer education programs for young women, potentially saving thousands of lives through increased awareness and timely screenings. She has also recently introduced the Reducing Hereditary Cancer Act, a bipartisan bill designed to make genetic cancer testing more accessible to Americans who are at risk. By removing financial and coverage barriers, she hopes to create a healthcare system that focuses on prevention and equity, ensuring no patient is denied care because of cost or insurance limitations. In addition to her work on civil rights and healthcare, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been an advocate for public safety measures that protect communities while respecting individual rights. She has supported common-sense gun safety reforms, investments in law enforcement training, and improved coordination among public safety agencies. Her legislative work also extends to protecting children and families. She has championed laws like the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, which addresses child drownings by requiring safety standards for public pools and spas. These efforts reflect her broader commitment to legislation that has a tangible impact on everyday lives. While Congress is often marked by partisan gridlock, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has shown an ability to collaborate with colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Her bipartisan efforts on anti-hate initiatives, healthcare reform, and safety legislation demonstrate her belief that meaningful change requires cooperation and dialogue, even among political opponents. This approach has allowed her to move forward on initiatives that might otherwise stall in a divided political climate. By focusing on shared values such as safety, health, and equality, she has been able to advance legislation that benefits a broad range of Americans. As she continues her work in Congress, Debbie Wasserman Schultz remains committed to her core mission: defending civil rights, improving healthcare access, and safeguarding communities. She has made it clear that she sees these priorities as interconnected, with each influencing the strength and resilience of the nation as a whole. Her ongoing legislative efforts, from combating hate crimes to expanding medical testing access, are grounded in a belief that the government should be both responsive and proactive in addressing the needs of its people. This vision, combined with her experience and willingness to work across political divides, positions her as a significant force in shaping policy on some of the most pressing issues facing the country today. For constituents in Florida and for Americans across the nation, Debbie Wasserman Schultz continues to serve as a steadfast advocate, ensuring that civil rights, healthcare, and public safety remain at the top of the congressional agenda. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Wall Street Journal
7 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Gavin Newsom's Risky Gerrymander Gambit - Opinion: Potomac Watch
Full Transcript This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated. Announcer: From the Opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Paul Gigot: The gerrymander wars heat up again as California Governor Gavin Newsom says he'll change the district's maps in California, in order to give Democrats five more seats in the House of Representatives, if Texas goes ahead with its Republican plan to add five more Republican seats in redistricting. Can Newsom make that work, and how will that affect Republican plans in Missouri, Ohio, Florida as the mid-decade redistricting battles continue before the 2026 election? And how is all of this going to be affected going forward in the future as Americans continue to move out of some of the most-heavily Democratic states into Republican-run states, like Texas, Florida, Utah, and others? So, welcome to Potomac Watch. I'm Paul Gigot. This is our daily podcast for WSJ Opinion, and I'm here with Kim Strassel and Allysia Finley. Let's listen to Gavin Newsom on Instagram talk about his plans for redistricting in California. Gavin Newsom: It's time to make another phone call to Greg Abbott. This time, instead of calling him and telling him you're "entitled" to five congressional seats, it's time to tell him to stand down. It's time to recognize that democracy is at risk. It's time to, dare I say, do the right thing. Actually see how that feels for you doing the right thing. If you don't, California will neutralize anything you do in the state of Texas. California will continue to punch above its weight. We believe in democracy. We believe in the enduring values of our founding fathers. 249 years. We're not going to sit back passively. We're not going to sit back and watch you light democracy on fire. Paul Gigot: Well, Gavin Newsom's already running for president, we know, and he's made a big issue of this redistricting battle. But let's look at the math here, Allysia. California has 52 seats. Democrats have 43 of them, Republicans have nine, if I'm correct. That's a pretty heavily gerrymandered map for Democrats. Can he really get those Republicans seats down to four in the state? Allysia Finley: Well, I think what he would have to do is to draw these kinds of districts that you see in Illinois, which stretch out these tentacles from San Francisco all the way to the Nevada border. The districts that the Republicans hold in the state tend to be very rural, up in the north as well as in the Central Valley. And then you have a couple again along the border with Nevada and Arizona. These, again, are more rural districts in order to- Paul Gigot: And they're compact. Allysia Finley: They're compact districts. Paul Gigot: I mean, they're pretty compact. Allysia Finley: Right. They're very compact, and they were intentionally so. There was an independent redistricting commission, but the Democrats hijacked this commission, and when they did that they intended to essentially pack Republicans into these districts. Hence, where you have Democrats have about 80% of the statewide districts, even though Donald Trump got about 40% of the vote. So that already indicates that they're heavily gerrymandered. In order to get five more seats, you'd really have to, as I said, draw these districts that may not even be contiguous. And then if you were to actually try to draw certain seats, like up in Central Valley where David Valadao, who has a very competitive seat, if you were to try to pack more Democrats into that district, you'd probably have to take some Democratic votes from Democratic Congressman Jim Costa's district right up north of him. And Costa barely won his reelection last year, so it's a high risk gambit. Paul Gigot: What's the process? If a redistricting commission under California law is required to redraw districts, how can Newsom do it unilaterally? Allysia Finley: Well, what they're talking about doing is the legislature would put a ballot initiative on this upcoming November ballot that would give the Democrats authority to redraw the district for one time mid-decade and only if Texas passes its map. And they're hoping that this makes it more palatable to the public who generally opposes such gerrymanders. In fact, there was a recent poll that came out from Politico saying two-thirds of the public support this independent redistricting commission and would oppose the legislature redrawing of the maps. But the idea is that the voters would have to approve this redrawn map. Paul Gigot: So they'd have to approve the redrawn map after Democrats draw it, and presumably there would be some pushback. I mean, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was a big promoter of the commission idea, he's opposed to it. Others are opposed to it. So it's not a sure thing that it would pass. And it sounds to me, Kim, that Allysia is saying we might be able to squeeze out a couple of seats, but it's far from a sure thing, and far less easy for California Democrats to do it now than it is for Texas Republicans who seem really set on doing it, redrawing the map once the Democrats come back from their sojourn into the great state of Illinois and the protection of JB Pritzker to give a quorum. Kim Strassel: Yeah. I mean, look, all Texas Republicans have to do is wait out Texas Democrats, and that's likely to happen. We already have Texas Democrats meeting and, as I expected would happen, they'll wait out to the end of this legislative session, which ends at the end of this week, and then they'll have a reason to come back and Republicans will pass their plan. This is what's happened in prior walkouts. Nothing new there. By contrast, what California is trying to do is actually quite a lift. Allysia just described the process. There's also a very short timeline for this. The legislature would need to get this passed essentially by the end of the week in order to hit all the necessary deadlines in California to have it on a ballot in early November. They can probably do that. They have super majorities. It will take two-thirds of each chamber in California to pass it, but again, Newsom essentially commands that many Democrats anyway. This in the meantime is going to be an off-year referendum, which means it'll probably have lower voter turnout. It's going to be very expensive on both sides. You have potential lawsuits may be coming. Steve Hilton, who is the gubernatorial candidate, has already said that he'll litigate against any measure the legislature passes, and he's going to make the legal argument that the state lacks the adequate data to accurately redraw these lines, especially given population shifts during and after COVID. You're going to have a lot of high-dollar people that are opposing this. You mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger. One of the original proponents of this independent redistricting commission was not just Schwarzenegger, but Charles Munger Jr. who is the son of the former Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman. He spent more than $12 million passing it the first time, and he's already said he'll spend what it takes to defend it this time around. You have traditional allies of Gavin Newsom's, like the League of Women Voters, who oppose this move as well too. And then you've got the public support. That initiative initially passed with 60% of the vote. That Politico poll now shows that Republicans and Democrats both support this commission by more than 60%. 72% of Independents favor an independent commission. So to say that Gavin Newsom has set himself a high bar here, he has. Paul Gigot: But he feels, I think, that he has to fight this because this shows he's in fighting trim to take on the Republican in 2028, which he thinks that or he hopes will help him in the Democratic primaries as he runs for president. All right, we're going to take a break. Here, we're talking about gerrymandering, and when we come back, we'll talk about where Republicans think they can squeeze out more safe seats outside of Texas, when we come back. Welcome back. I'm Paul Gigot with Kim Strassel and Allysia Finley talking about the gerrymander wars. One of the intriguing sidelights of this redistricting brawl is that we're seeing the opposition to it come from Republicans in swing seats in the red states. There's a congressman from California, Kevin Kiley. It's the third district of California. That's one I think is on the Nevada border. It's a big district, rural district, and he has sent an op-ed into our paper, we will publish, basically saying, look, this is a terrible idea, this mid-decade redistricting, and he's introducing a bill in Congress to say you can only redistrict once a decade coincident with the census that happens every 10 years. The next one would be 2030. Mike Lawler, another Republican from New York, the northern New York suburbs, he's opposed to this redistricting because if Texas goes forward, then there's a lot of pressure on the Democrats who run the state legislature and the governorship to also do the same. But they have a similar issue with commission, which has set the terms in New York. I guess, Allysia, these swing state Republicans, and Kiley's got a pretty safe seat now, but he could not have a safe seat after this. These swing state Republicans could be a roadkill. Allysia Finley: Right. And so that's why you're seeing the movement in Congress to do something about this. Now, I'm not sure you're going to get other Republicans to jump on board with this, because they figured that they could probably gain more seats than Democrats could actually subtract, given that the Democratic states are already so heavily gerrymandered. Now there's talk about Ohio Republicans in Ohio, Missouri, obviously Texas redrawing their maps, and you could get 10 or 11 seats out of that. Paul Gigot: Hold it here, Allysia. 10 or 11 seats gained overall? Allysia Finley: The reason why is because you're probably going to get some redrawn districts also because, well, this is making a presumption that the Supreme Court might end up ruling in favor of Louisiana in this racial gerrymander case. And so you're likely then to get some lawsuits against some majority minority districts in these other states Republican that were drawn that give Democrats an extra seat. Paul Gigot: That would be Louisiana in particular. Allysia Finley: Particular. But there are several states where these majority minority districts were explicitly drawn and benefit Democrats. Paul Gigot: So Kim, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Missouri could possibly squeeze out one more Republican seat. Democrats have two in the state now. They could get one. What are potential Republican gains in Ohio and Florida as you look at it? Kim Strassel: So Ohio's in an interesting situation because essentially its map was not agreed to, so it was already in the middle of a process. It's not reopening anything. It's actually midway through a process of doing it. It also has an independent redistricting commission, but a bit of a mirror of California's. By the way, these independent redistricting commissions, that name is very misleading. They're not very independent in most states. If they are independent, they usually end in a deadlock. If they've actually successfully made a map, it's because they are dominated by one side or the other. In Ohio, they are dominated by, this one is dominated by Republicans, and they'll get a couple of seats; two, maybe three seats out of Ohio. You mentioned Missouri. One, they're looking at Indiana. You could maybe squeeze one more seat out of Indiana. And then a big discussion where people are looking more closely is Florida, where the House Speaker is now forming a special committee to look at the maps. Florida has a map that is helpful to Republicans, but it has not in any way gerrymandered itself the way that say California or Illinois or New York has. And if you went in there, I mean, could you get another four seats, something like that? And add in Allysia's majority minority point and, yeah, you could be looking, all told, at 10, 11 or so seats. Paul Gigot: And on the Democratic side, let's say you got two or three out of California and maybe one, two out of New York. Although, that might have to happen after 2026 in New York. Kim Strassel: Yeah, they can't get in this. Paul Gigot: Given the complication, they can't get it this year. So where else are the Democrats going to get it from? Kim Strassel: Yeah, I mean, look, they're looking at Oregon. That's my birth state. That's going to be pretty darn hard to do. Democrats hold five out of the six seats there, and the sixth seat is basically all of Eastern Oregon, which is a very conservative spot. You could redo all the maps to essentially have lines that reach from one end of the state to the other, basically cut it up like a layered cake maybe and get something like that, but it'd be pretty tough to do. Washington State, they're also looking at. But they don't have a lot of options, Paul, and this is why it's a very mismatched contest for them to have entered into, because guess what? Yeah, I mean, what Republicans are doing in Texas is quite an aggressive move, and they are following in the footsteps of what Democrats have already done. And that's the point, is that they have gerrymandered the dickens out of all of their states, and finding any more room for growth is going to be tough. But what they are doing by engaging Texas in this is giving Republicans the excuse they needed to reopen redistricting in a lot of states where they could actually squeeze some seats out. Paul Gigot: We're going to take another break, and when we come back, we'll talk about migration trends and how those are going to affect reapportionment in 2030, when we come back. Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker, "Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast." That is, "Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast." Announcer: From the Opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Paul Gigot: Welcome back. I'm Paul Gigot here on Potomac Watch with Kim Strassel and Allysia Finley. A point as we go into 2026 here, I think worth mentioning, is that when they talk about gerrymandering safe seats, they can now with the science of analyzing voter behavior and voting patterns, they can be very precise. But any given election still depends on the public mood. And if you get a status quo election in the House midterm, and sometimes there are, where it's closely fought and closely divided, those redistricting new maps would really matter. But if you got a wave election, as the Democrats had in 2018 and Republicans had in 2010 and 1994. You get big wave elections where the public mood swings remarkably against the president in office and his party, then you could put some of these gerrymandered seats would be in jeopardy, Allysia, because they would be facing new voters that don't know the incumbent, for one. Second, they'd have less safe margins. They might have moved down from a Republican 15 seat down to Republican five or six. Still, you'd think Republican would win, but in a wave, no guarantee. Allysia Finley: Right. So it's ironic if you go back and look at 22 years ago when Texas did a mid-decade redistricting, there was much ado and Democrats were warning, "Well, these partisan gerrymanders, Republican gerrymanders mean that we'll never have a chance of retaking the House until maybe after 2010." And then look what happened in 2006 and then 2008 where Democrats picked up 50 seats. And those were basically wave elections, illustrating your point. What's also important to know is that there are a lot of voters who are crossover voters, split voters who aren't partisan. So when we focus on the Republican voter advantage in certain districts, maybe they have a 15-point registration advantage or even a 20. In many of these districts, actually, independent unaffiliated voters actually constitute a plurality, and they are the ones who decide the elections. Now, in certain states and certain districts, they have trended more toward Republicans, but they could easily just as well go for Democrats. And a case in point in the opposite direction is David Valadao's district has a 16-point Democratic voter registration advantage, but he has managed to get a lot of crossover Democratic voters and Independents. And so in a wave election, like potentially 2026 could be if the voters are really upset and frustrated with Republicans or Donald Trump's policies, some of these gerrymanders could backfire, thinning the Republican margins and give Democrats more seats. Paul Gigot: Yeah, Valadao has proven to be a pretty resilient politician in the Central Valley of California. Kim, we also had a development here recently where Vice President Vance said that what we really need is not just a redistricting mid-decade, we need a new census mid-decade, because the census in 2020 was flawed, he says, because it included too many illegal aliens in the estimated count that determined which states would get which districts. And because of those flaws, he wants a new census mid-decade. And then of course all kinds of redistricting mayhem would flow from that. But the Constitution, of course, doesn't rule out a national count, a national census mid-decade. What it does rule out is reapportionment. It says very plainly that you can only reapportion once every decade coincident with the census. Kim Strassel: Right. So you couldn't use that census to now say, "Oh, look, all these people have moved to Texas. Texas gets yet another congressional seat." You can't do that. There is actually legislation that Congress passed that does allow for a mid-decade census, mostly in case if there's issues or problems and they think they might need to reorient federal funding allocations. That was the driving idea behind that legislation at the time. The problem here is logistics. It's actually amazing that we even pull off a census every decade given how difficult it is to conduct a census and how bad our federal government is at conducting censuses. And the idea that you could gear something like this up in six months and have it rolled out in any time of the conceivable near future is ludicrous. And if you did engage in such a process, I can promise you that the results that came in would not be very accurate. It might make the BLS look like a shiny example of statistical smartness by comparison. So I don't think that that's a very good idea. But don't underestimate just how sore a lot of Republicans are about the last census and the Supreme Court ruling that essentially ended their plan to disallow immigrants as part of the count. Donald Trump remains obsessed on this question. He's very, very grumpy. He believes that if they had been able to do what they wanted to do, that Republican states would have a lot more seats than they have now, and that the Republican Party was done ill by this. But again, even if you were to try to gear this up and somehow made it happen, you're not going to change that bottom line in terms of what states have seats now. Paul Gigot: Allysia, you know more about this than I do, and you followed this court case and so on. But on the census point, isn't it true that Texas has an awful lot of illegal migrants? So if you couldn't count the illegal migrants in Texas, it might not gain as many seats as it would otherwise, and then the Republicans wouldn't be able to gain that many additional seats. Allysia Finley: So there's a few actually different questions here. There's the question of, well, everyone gets counted. The census requires that every person be counted. Paul Gigot: Person, not just citizen. Allysia Finley: Person. Every single person. It says person. Paul Gigot: Right. Allysia Finley: Right. What the Trump administration wanted to do in its first term was to add a question on the census to ask if they were citizens. Now, Democrats sued to try to block that. They said, well, this will result in potentially illegal immigrants or people not responding to the census and that could hurt us. Now, the Supreme Court intervened on Administrative Procedure Act grounds and ruled that the administration's attempt to add a citizenship question was (inaudible). So it was not added. But there's the separate question is whether you can redistrict and reapportion seats based on citizenship or immigration status. Now that opens up a whole new can of worms. Are we going to only consider when we apportion House districts at the end of the decade or then redistrict? Are we only going to do that based on citizen voting age population and then exclude children because they're not voters? Are we only going to do it again based on citizen, or could we include immigrants who have green cards and aren't illegal? That's a whole nother court case, legal challenge that hasn't even been raised if they were to try to do that. And I think that would actually, as I said, open up a whole new can of worms. Paul Gigot: Kim, the larger big picture backdrop here, of course, are migration trends between the states. And what's really been happening for a long time now, and it accelerated during COVID, was the migration from states like California and Illinois and New York in particular to Texas, Florida, and some other Republican-run states, more rural states. And so the Brennan Center, which is a left-leaning outfit, has done an estimate. Current trends: Texas after the 2030 census could gain four seats. Florida, four seats. Utah, Idaho, North Carolina, and Arizona, one seat each. Meanwhile, California is expected to lose four. Lose four. New York, lose two. Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, lose won. Now, most of those losers are Democratic-tilted seats. So you look ahead to 2030 and the House gets more difficult for Democrats. Kim Strassel: Do you see the trend there, Paul? I always like to say that actually American citizens have two very powerful tools when they're unhappy with governance. One is the power to vote and the other is a U-Haul truck, especially if you do not like your state and local governance. And that's actually really been a fascinating theme in particular since COVID, because if you really dig into numbers and migration, we've always had migration in the United States, but a lot of it in the past was driven more by economic opportunity or change of life, retirement for instance, or maybe better schools in a different place. It's increasingly becoming a political choice for people, and that really accelerated, as you note, during COVID, as people had frustrations with lockdowns and certain forms of local governance that they just decided that they were done with. But it has accelerated, it's continued. These numbers are huge. It's been very good for Republican states, or at least states that are Republican now. One interesting question is if all these people move in, do they change the political tenor of the states and vote in a different way, shift the politics there? We'll have to see how that comes. But from an immediate perspective, this is something that ought to concern Democrats deeply. And as they are doing their non-autopsy at the moment, they might put on the list of things that they're not deeply looking into, this question of state and local governments, millionaires, taxes and economic penalties that are driving people out of their states, because this is going to be a big boom for Republicans. We're talking about the immediate redistricting problem and issue and political fight at the moment, but the long-term trends are the ones that really matter, and those are all going one direction. Paul Gigot: We've been writing about taxes, moving migration trends in some of these states. I saw the story in The Journal this morning about Democrats in blue states looking at the Massachusetts model to squeeze more money out of the wealthy. And of course, Massachusetts raised its top marginal tax rate to above 9%. It had been a flat tax of about five or so. Moved it up above nine, and then they're getting a windfall of revenue from that, at least here in the short to medium-term. And these blue states are saying, "Oh boy, we can try that." Well, they've tried it. It's very hard to get the tax rates higher in California than it already is. 13.3% I think is the top marginal rate there, and it hits at a very low level of income. The glorious city of New York, of which I am a not-so-proud resident, 14.8% top marginal rate. Where are you going to get that? Mamdami wants to raise it to 16.8. I can tell you that's going to drive more people out of the state. All right. We'll leave it there for today on Potomac Watch. Thanks to Kim. Thanks to Allysia. Thank you all for listening.
