
‘Crazy hill to die on': Newsom jolts California with bid to throw out House maps
On podcasts and social media, the California governor has threatened that if Texas follows President Donald Trump's advice and redraws its congressional districts to shore up the GOP's slender House majority, California should throw out its own maps to boost Democrats, circumventing or overhauling the state's voter-approved redistricting commission.
It's a proposal capturing the imagination of a Democratic Party spoiling for another fight with Republicans and desperate to regain a foothold in Washington. This week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries privately huddled with members of the California delegation to discuss redistricting at the bloc's weekly lunch. And in California, text threads are ablaze with discussions of what a redraw would look like, who would benefit, and how it would affect active efforts to recruit candidates and raise money.
But it's also a longshot. And to many Democrats in Newsom's home state, it's a new obsession bordering on bizarre — or even anti-democratic.
'Trying to save democracy by destroying democracy is dangerous and foolish,' said Assemblymember Alex Lee, the head of the state Legislature's Pprogressive Ccaucus. 'By legitimizing the race to the bottom of gerrymandering, Democrats will ultimately lose.'
Or as one Democratic political consultant granted anonymity to speak freely put it, 'The idea of taking away the power from the citizens and giving it back to the politicians — the optics of that is horrendous and indefensible.'
The consultant said, 'That's insane. That's a crazy hill to die on.'
Newsom has defended the proposal as a break-the-emergency-glass maneuver to preserve what he has cast as America's besieged democracy, arguing Democrats have to become more aggressive and creative to have a shot at blocking Trump's agenda.
'I'm not going to be the guy who said I could-shoulda-woulda. I'm not going to be passive in this moment,' Newsom told reporters on Wednesday, saying he felt compelled to act because of 'the existential threat of what Donald Trump and some of these Republican states are trying to do.'
And Newsom is not without support in the party after Democrats' throttling in November.
'A lot of people are looking for a fight from the Democratic Party, and Governor Newsom's response to Texas is the kind of thing I think they are looking for,' said Neera Tanden, a former Biden administration official and president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, the influential Democratic think tank. 'People who argue we shouldn't look at measures like this — I think fundamentally they're responsible for Democrats' backsliding because what we see time and time again is the Republican Party is ruthless to achieve their goals.'
Newsom has laid out two options for a retaliatory redistricting, both of which present legal and political challenges.
He could test a novel legal theory by asking the Legislature to create new maps now, rather than wait for decennial redistricting. Or he could ask voters, who in 2010 resoundingly approved the creation of a non-partisan process, to support a Democratic gerrymander in a state where Republicans hold just nine of 52 seats despite comprising a quarter of the electorate.
The idea startled Sacramento, where lawmakers and staffers were scrambling to decipher Newsom's intentions. And it's generated intense skepticism among good government advocates who see it as Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential contender, simply posturing.
'Pretty much everything the governor says lately we have to look through the lens of his eventual run for president,' said Mindy Romero, founder and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California. 'It just looks like blustering. It just looks like an attempt to get attention and headlines and show himself sparring directly with the president or with Republican leadership.'
Newsom is not alone in his frustration with Texas. Democrats around the country are decrying Texas' move to redraw its seats — particularly as Trump has floated having four additional red states manipulate maps to boost the GOP. The effort has some national Democrats feeling heartburn for the power that some blue states handed independent redistricting commissions to draw district lines while red states like Texas weaponized theirs.
Following his meeting with members of the California delegation on Wednesday, Jeffries said in a brief interview, 'It was a thoughtful and robust discussion. An important one, given what's happening in Texas, but beyond that, I'll defer to Zoe Lofgren and Pete Aguilar.'
He said, 'The governor and the California delegation are going to play an important role in whatever happens moving forward, but I'm thankful that the conversation is taking place, and it's a very active one.'
Lofgren, the dean of the delegation, played roles in California Democrats' previous redistricting pushes, too, and was the former chair of the congressional committee overseeing federal elections. California Democrats were largely tight-lipped about their meeting Wednesday afternoon with Jeffries, but attendees told POLITICO the delegation was largely supportive of Newsom's threats to push for new maps if Texas went ahead with its mid-cycle redistricting.
'If Texas moves forward with an egregious mid-decade redistricting, this cannot go unanswered,' Lofgren and Aguilar, the Democratic Caucus chair, said in a statement. 'If their record of throwing 17 million people off their health insurance to hand out billionaire tax breaks was popular, they wouldn't have to redraw their maps to try to hold on to power."
Other members of the California delegation, even those from purple districts, signaled they could support such a push.
'Democrats need to stop bringing a butter knife to a gun fight,' said Rep. Dave Min, who last cycle defended a battleground Orange County seat. 'I think all of us want to see a fair process, but if Republicans are going to try to cheat and redistrict, I think Democratic states are going to consider all options.'
Rep. Derek Tran said, 'I'm looking at it and keeping an open mind.'
Political consultants in California certainly are.
'Every Democratic strategist involved in competitive races in California is not only talking about this but has clear vision on what they'd like to see,' said one Democratic strategist who was granted anonymity to describe private conversations.
That could complicate life for vulnerable incumbents. Redistricting is a zero-sum game: Moving Democratic voters into one district necessarily means excising them from another — a perilous proposition in an area, like purple Orange County, where multiple competitive districts abut one another.
It may never get there. For now, Democrats are trying to differentiate plans from posturing as Newsom escalates another tit-for-tat political standoff.
'It's like a game,' said Democratic political consultant Andrew Acosta, 'to see who can out-politicize each other.'
Newsom, said Paul Mitchell, an expert on California redistricting, may simply be making a bluff intended to deter Texas — 'playing poker with a state that thinks it invented poker.'
Melanie Mason contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Poll: Americans think Paramount is cancelling 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' because of politics — and they don't approve
More favor (46%) than oppose (31%) "late-night talk show hosts getting involved in politics by speaking out on political issues." More Americans disapprove (40%) than approve (33%) of Paramount's controversial decision earlier this month to cancel CBS's long-running late-night program with host Stephen Colbert, according to a new Yahoo/YouGov poll. And while CBS has claimed the decision was 'purely … financial' — adding that it was 'not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount' — more Americans believe that politics rather than money was the real reason behind it. The survey of 1,729 U.S. adults was conducted in the immediate aftermath of Paramount's Late Show announcement, from July 24 to July 28 — a period that coincided with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) finally agreeing to sign off on the company's proposed $8 billion mega-merger with the Hollywood studio Skydance. Colbert is a sharp critic of President Trump, and skeptics have accused Paramount of cancelling the Late Show not because late-night talk shows are losing money but because the company wanted to appease the Trump administration and get its Skydance deal over the line. Last October, Trump sued Paramount for the way CBS's 60 Minutes program edited an interview with his Democratic rival, Kamala Harris — and earlier this month, Paramount decided to settle with Trump and pay $16 million to his future presidential library, even though several legal experts said the case was frivolous. Colbert — who is scheduled to keep hosting the Late Show until it goes dark next May — mocked the settlement on-air, calling it a 'big fat bribe.' 'As someone who has always been a proud employee of this network, I'm offended, and I don't know if anything will ever repair my trust in this company,' Colbert told his audience. 'But just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help.' The new Yahoo/YouGov poll shows that more Americans agree with Colbert's theory of why his show was cancelled than agree with other, more 'purely financial' explanations. When asked why CBS and Paramount are canceling the Late Show — and instructed to select all the reasons that apply — the share who select 'Paramount is trying to curry favor with the Trump administration' (37%) and 'Stephen Colbert is too critical of Donald Trump' (36%) is greater than the share who select 'the Late Show is losing money (32%), 'the Late Show is losing viewers' (30%) and 'the late-night format is losing relevance' (26%). Partisan preferences are clearly playing a role in the reaction to the Late Show's demise. Far more Americans think Colbert is liberal (53%) than think he's moderate (10%) or conservative (3%), and Democrats (72%) are six times more likely to disapprove of the decision than Republicans (12%). Still, there is no consensus that Colbert has gone overboard politically. In fact, more Americans (35%) say he is "about right" politically than say he's "too political" (28%). And more also favor (46%) than oppose (31%) "late-night talk show hosts getting involved in politics by speaking out on political issues." That might help explain why a majority of Americans still say they watch Colbert's content — either 'always' (5%), 'occasionally' (21%) or when they 'see clips online' (27%). The rest (47%) say they never watch Colbert. Finally, when Americans are asked to select up to three of their favorite late-night talk show hosts, Colbert (25%) ties Jimmy Fallon (25%) for first place, with Jimmy Kimmel (22%), Jon Stewart (19%), John Oliver (11%) Seth Meyers (7%), Bill Maher (7%), Andy Cohen (3%) and Taylor Tomlinson (2%) trailing behind them. __________________ The Yahoo survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,729 U.S. adults interviewed online from July 24 to 28, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 3.1%. Solve the daily Crossword


The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump faces heat on AI chips
A group of former national security officials and tech policy advocates called on Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to reverse course in a letter Monday, as several Democrats and at least one key Republican voiced concerns over the decision. '[W]e believe this move represents a strategic misstep that endangers the United States' economic and military edge in [AI]—an area increasingly seen as decisive in 21st-century global leadership,' the letter reads. The Trump administration initially restricted sales of Nvidia's H20 chips to China in May, but the chipmaker announced earlier this month that it was taking steps to sell the chips again after receiving assurances from the government that its licenses would be granted. Lutnick indicated the decision was part of a broader rare earth deal with Beijing, while arguing that they were only receiving Nvidia's 'fourth best' chip. However, this has done little to assuage concerns. Monday's letter argued the H20 is not an outdated chip and can still accelerate China's AI capabilities, while limiting the number of chips available to the U.S. It also suggested the move would likely weaken the effectiveness of export controls and encourage Beijing to seek more concessions from Washington. Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, similarly expressed concerns Sunday that the administration is using export controls as a 'bargaining chip.' 'This approach risks eroding the credibility of our export controls regime, blurs the line between economic and security priorities, and sends a dangerous signal that critical guardrails are up for negotiation,' the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Lutnick. The two Democrats suggested they 'no longer have confidence' the administration is following the 'rigorous, evidence-based interagency process' required to determine export controls under the law. 'It is clear that this Administration is gambling with our national security and our economy all for the sake of President Trump's trade war that is harming American families, workers, and consumers,' they added.


The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump says he didn't get Colbert canceled
President Trump on Tuesday sought to distance himself from a decision by CBS and the network's parent company, Paramount, to cancel 'The Late Show' with host Stephen Colbert, a move that has sparked widespread criticism and accusations of federal bribery. 'Everybody is saying that I was solely responsible for the firing of Stephen Colbert from CBS, Late Night. That is not true,' Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. 'The reason he was fired was a pure lack of TALENT, and the fact that this deficiency was costing CBS $50 Million Dollars a year in losses — And it was only going to get WORSE!' Trump initially celebrated Colbert's cancellation, which the network said was a financially necessary one but came just days after Paramount agreed to pay the president's foundation more than $15 million to settle a lawsuit against CBS stemming from a '60 Minutes' interview it ran with former Vice President Kamala Harris last fall. Trump's lawsuit came as Paramount was working to secure an $8 billion mega-merger with fellow entertainment giant Skydance, a deal Trump's FCC approved late last week. Colbert, before CBS announced it was canceling his show, accused Paramount of paying Trump a 'big fat bribe' to get their deal with Skydance cleared. On Monday, a press freedom group filed an ethics complaint against FCC chairman Brendan Carr over his comments on the CBS case while Democrats in Congress have promised to investigate the Paramount/Skydance merger, the settlement payment and Colbert's cancellation. The president, in his Truth Social post on Tuesday, suggested other Late Night hosts like Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon, who have been critical of him and Republicans could be 'next up' on the chopping block. 'The only real question is, who will go first,' Trump, a former reality television star and longtime New York media figure wrote. 'Show Biz and Television is a very simple business. If you get Ratings, you can say or do anything. If you don't, you always become a victim. Colbert became a victim to himself, the other two will follow.'