California Republican moves to ban middecade redistricting wars
Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., says he plans to introduce legislation on Tuesday that would bar middecade nationwide and nullify any new maps approved before the next census is carried out in 2030.
'This will also stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country,' Kiley said in a statement.
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-New York, who represents a swingy Westchester County-based district, has said he will introduce a similar bill to ban all gerrymandering in all states.
The seats represented by both Lawler and Kiley could be on the chopping block if Democrats to the Texas effort by gerrymandering their own congressional maps.
'Newsom is trying to subvert the will of voters and do lasting damage to democracy in California,' Kiley said. 'Fortunately, Congress has the ability to protect California voters.'
Trump, who has pushed the Texas effort to flip Democratic seats in the 2026 midterms, showed no interest in any redistricting compromise Tuesday.
'I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats,' Trump told CNBC.
GOP leaders in Congress, who would need to give the green light, haven't commented on the proposals by Kiley and Lawler.
Although Kiley slammed Newsom, the most immediate impact of his legislation would be to nix the controversial Republican effort to rejigger Texas congressional map with the goal of changing the current 25-13 GOP edge to a 30-8 margin.
The Lone Star State GOP has launched the effort after Trump demanded they find a way to give Republicans more seats in an effort to hold onto the House of Representatives in what is shaping up as a tricky political environment in 2026.
Democratic state lawmakers fled the state Monday and for now have succeeded in denying a quorum for Republicans to move ahead. But most analysts believe the GOP can eventually muscle through its move in Texas.
Republicans in other red states like Missouri, Florida, Ohio and Indiana are also considering similar efforts to nuke Democratic seats before 2026.
But Democrats are considering responding with changes of their own.
If Texas goes ahead with its redistricting plan, Newsom says he will push to redraw California's map to benefit Democrats. The Golden State's delegation is now split 43-9 in favor of Democrats but political insiders say it could easily be redrawn to give Democrats up to a 49-3 edge.
Gov. Hochul is also vowing to fight fire with fire by redrawing New York's map to extend Democratic edge from the current 19-7 margin, although any such effort is unlikely to take effect in time for the 2026 vote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Waller Emerges as Favorite for Fed Chair Among Trump Team
(Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller is emerging as a top candidate to serve as the central bank's chair among President Donald Trump's advisers as they look for a replacement for Jerome Powell, according to people familiar with the matter. All Hail the Humble Speed Hump Mayor Asked to Explain $1.4 Billion of Wasted Johannesburg Funds Three Deaths Reported as NYC Legionnaires' Outbreak Spreads Major Istanbul Projects Are Stalling as City Leaders Sit in Jail PATH Train Service Resumes After Fire at Jersey City Station Trump advisers are impressed with Waller's willingness to move on policy based on forecasting, rather than current data, and his deep knowledge of the Fed system as a whole, the people said. Waller has met with the president's team about the role, but has yet to meet with Trump himself, the people said on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. Kevin Warsh, a former Fed official, and Kevin Hassett, currently Trump's National Economic Council director, also remain in contention for the job, the people said, which will open up when Powell's tenure as chair expires in May 2026. 'President Trump will continue to nominate the most competent and experienced individuals,' White House Spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. 'Unless it comes from President Trump himself, however, any discussion about personnel decisions should be regarded as pure speculation.' A representative for the Fed declined to comment. Trump said on Wednesday that the administration has narrowed the list of candidates for Fed chair to three people. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Vice President JD Vance and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick are on the search committee, Trump said. Hassett has met with Trump to discuss the chair job and has also impressed both the president and the team, Bloomberg News has reported. Warsh interviewed for the job in 2017 but was ultimately passed over for Powell. In November, he was also considered to serve as Treasury secretary. Waller's Dissent Last week, Waller was one of two Fed board members to vote against the central bank's decision to hold its benchmark rate steady for a fifth consecutive time. He and his colleague Michelle Bowman, both Trump nominees, preferred a quarter-point reduction, citing growing signs of labor-market weakness. A few days after the Fed announced its decision to hold interest rates, a jobs report showed that job growth cooled sharply over the previous three months, lending credence to Waller and Bowman's dissent. Waller's views differed from those of Powell and other policymakers on the board, who have so far described the labor market as broadly solid and have supported a patient approach to adjusting rates so that the central bank can continue to gauge how Trump's tariffs will impact the economy. That view has frustrated the president, who has repeatedly assailed Powell for not cutting rates sooner. Waller, a Ph.D. economist, has attracted the attention of Trump's economic advisers over the past year as the president talked about the economy while on the campaign trail. Fed Experience Trump nominated Waller to the Fed in 2020. Before that, he had served as a research director and executive vice president at the St. Louis Fed. In 2020, senators voted 48-47 to support Waller's nomination to the Fed board. As a Fed governor in 2022, Waller engaged in a public debate with influential economists outside the Fed, including former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, with his argument that the central bank could successfully lower the post-pandemic inflation without significantly raising unemployment. In the end, Waller proved right as inflation came back below 3% and unemployment never moved back above 4.2%. Trump's dissatisfaction with Powell has triggered questions about whether his next pick to lead the Fed would back monetary policy independence for the central bank. Waller has said that the Fed's independence is critical for the economy, but added that the president is free to say what he wants the Fed. Last month, Waller told Bloomberg Television that he hasn't yet directly heard from the president about the Fed chair role. 'If the president contacted me and said, 'I want you to serve,' I would do it,' he said in July. 'But he has not contacted me.' While Powell's term as chair doesn't expire until May, Trump is getting an earlier shot at reshaping the central bank. He said on Wednesday that he planned to fill a soon-to-be vacant slot from Adriana Kugler's early departure from the Fed board with a short-term pick, and then later name a candidate for the 14-year term opening which renews in early 2026. --With assistance from Annmarie Hordern, Christopher Condon and Hadriana Lowenkron. The Pizza Oven Startup With a Plan to Own Every Piece of the Pie Russia's Secret War and the Plot to Kill a German CEO AI Flight Pricing Can Push Travelers to the Limit of Their Ability to Pay A High-Rise Push Is Helping Mumbai Squeeze in Pools, Gyms and Greenery Government Steps Up Campaign Against Business School Diversity ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
13 minutes ago
- USA Today
5 things 'South Park' ridiculed in Ep. 2 from Donald Trump to ICE
South Park is at it again. After the premiere of the 27th season of the Comedy Central cartoon absolutely ripped and parodied Donald Trump, the second episode of this year's series went at multiple parties. WARNING: SOUTH PARK SPOILERS AHEAD! DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT THE SECOND EPISODE SPOILED! Ready? OK! The plot is basically this: School counselor Mr. Mackey gets fired and lands a job with ICE, and his good work gets him to Mar-a-Lago to meet Trump and others. Meanwhile, there's a new right-wing podcaster who angers Cartman. Here's a list of who got skewered in this episode, "Get a Nut." Donald Trump The same parody from the first episode is back. JD Vance (who's meant to be a Fantasy Island Tattoo parody) Vance has already tweeted about it. Kristi Noem (who shoots dogs throughout the episode) Right-wing podcasters (Clyde plays one) There's a whole list of who Clyde is supposed to be in this episode. ICE (which raids Heaven) That really happened.
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
Congress wants to cut the smartest investment taxpayers ever made
Virtually every smartphone on the planet runs on a chip paid for by American taxpayers — a chip that I helped invent. Now Congress is moving to cut funding for the National Science Foundation that could lead to future breakthroughs. Investing in innovation is not wasteful spending. It is one of the smartest investments Washington makes, creating new jobs, stronger businesses and higher tax revenue in every corner of the country. Cutting the level of government funding for scientific research now would rip those future returns out of American hands and deliver them to our global competitors. I built my career in public universities. Over four decades, I helped lead a dozen federally funded research labs. Five of them produced breakthrough technologies that became part of the backbone of modern life. In the 1980s, we developed a much more efficient style of microprocessor (the RISC chip) in a university lab with graduate students funded by the government. At the time, few imagined that breakthrough would one day power 300 billion chips. The National Science Foundation also funded research that made digital storage much more reliable and affordable (called RAID storage), enhancing everything from cloud computing to online banking. These innovations helped launch entire industries and are used daily by billions of people. These breakthroughs did not come from corporate boardrooms or billionaire-backed startups. They were built by students, developed in public labs and funded by American taxpayers. For decades, my research received support from the NSF's Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, through grants and Ph.D. fellowships. All told, American taxpayers invested just under $100 million in the labs I helped lead. Accounting for inflation, technologies that came out of them went on to generate over $1 trillion in product sales. That is a 10,000-to-1 return on investment to the public and surely at least 1,000-to-1 return directly back to the government in taxes. Not from luck, but from decades of public investment. And the payoff is real. These gains show up as jobs in 44 states, tools that power small businesses and tax revenue that supports public schools, infrastructure and national defense. These returns belong to the American taxpayer. This isn't some ivory tower experiment or elite subsidy. It is an innovation engine and one of the most powerful drivers of U.S. economic strength. So what is Congress doing with one of the few federal programs that consistently creates value for everyday Americans? Preparing to cut National Science Foundation funding by $2 billion, a 23 percent reduction from 2025. The Trump administration has signaled that it wants to prioritize artificial intelligence, with efforts such as the recent AI Action Plan and the announcement of $100 million in NSF investment. These efforts can't begin to offset the damage of deep cuts to the broader ecosystem that makes future AI breakthroughs possible. Cutting the budget of the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering would be a self-inflicted blow to American competitiveness. Lawmakers say they're prioritizing programs with the greatest national impact, but this cut targets the very office funding the administration's top priorities: AI, quantum computing and cybersecurity. That's not prioritization. It's a fiduciary failure. AI is advancing fast, but it depends on breakthroughs throughout the computing stack. My own specialty, computer design, may seem distant from AI, but it's fundamental. Just look at NVIDIA's stock price. None of this appeared out of thin air. It came from researchers trained through NSF fellowships. Shrink the pipeline, and we lose the lead. Anticipating cuts, NSF has already halved its fellowships for 2025. We need more computer scientists, not fewer, and we need them trained here, not in countries eager to claim our place. China has more than tripled its research spending since 2010 and continues to raise it every year. China understands what is at stake: leadership in AI, semiconductors, cybersecurity and advanced computing. If we back off now, foreign firms will not hesitate to build on the breakthroughs that American taxpayers made possible. They will turn our investment in research into their dominance, and the jobs and industries that should grow in Atlanta, Boston and Dallas will take root in London, Bangalore and Shenzhen. As a scientist, I'm scared. As a taxpayer, I'm livid. We built a lead. Now Washington is ready to give it away. Since its founding, America has capitalized on innovation as the primary engine of wealth creation and nationwide prosperity. History is full of nations that failed to innovate and lost their edge. The U.S. has done the opposite. We invested in research, trained generations of scientists and engineers and built the most dynamic innovation ecosystem the world has ever seen. Every American taxpayer is a silent shareholder in that success. If we walk away now, we lose not just future breakthroughs but also what we have already earned. If Congress fails to preserve this funding, we hand our competitive edge and prosperity to someone else.
