With TX lawmakers in toe, CA Dems tie redistricting efforts to Trump opposition
In June, Trump began pressing Texas Republican leaders to consider redrawing their congressional districts to ensure the GOP retained its razor-thin House majority in the 2026 midterms. Dozens of Texas Democrats fled Austin Sunday to California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts to break the Republicans' quorum and stop them from moving forward. In response, Texas GOP leaders have issued arrest warrants, issued the lawmakers $500 daily fines, and filed lawsuits to force them from office.
'We are running from nothing,' Texas Rep. Ann Johnson said during a press conference with Newsom, Pelosi, and other California Democrats. 'We are running to the front lines to stand with other Democrats across the state of Texas, across the state of California, across this nation, to ensure that each and every individual has the opportunity to pick, to decide that government is for the people by the people, and not the politicians selecting them.'
Newsom has become the Democrats' most public champion to respond in kind by asking the legislature to approve a November special election that would ask California voters to temporarily approve new congressional boundaries. He and state leaders tied their efforts, which would move more liberal voters to five districts currently held by Republicans, to voters' growing discontent with Trump on issues like immigration enforcement, tariffs, and a $1 billion fine that his administration levied on UCLA this week, which Newsom called 'extortion.'
'That's what's at stake with this conversation...It's all about elevating the deeper consciousness of the line that Donald Trump continues to cross,' Newsom told reporters. 'It's not about him playing by a different set of rules. There are no rules for Donald Trump. This is a serious moment in American history.'
Pelosi compared the absconding Texas Democrats to the Founding Fathers, calling them 'defenders of democracy.'
'We thank you not only for your courage, but for your patriotism,' she said. 'At the beginning of our country, Thomas Paine said, 'The times have found us.' And now the times have found us, especially our Texas delegation, to save our constitution.'
Legislative Democrats overcame their initial reticence and have thrown their weight behind Newsom, who has asked that new maps be drawn for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles. If he succeeds, congressional redistricting power would revert back after 2030 to the independent Citizen Redistricting Commission.
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said Friday that the map would come out next week, ahead of the Aug. 22 deadline that Secretary of State Shirley Weber set for lawmakers to decide if the election will take place. The Legislature returns from summer break on Aug. 18, and is expected to immediately begin work on related legislation.
The Republican effort to redraw districts in their favor has now expanded to Indiana, Missouri, and Florida, all states where redistricting power lies with Republican-held legislatures, making it likely that even if California successfully redistricts, it won't be enough to offset the GOP's gains.
Newsom said few other states could act with the 'scale and scope' of California: 'It's always the right thing to do the right thing.'
'California has to be prepared to respond. It is our sacred responsibility to California, to our country, and we know that there is no bottom to Trump's dystopian plan,' said Senate President pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Santa Rosa.
'I'm firm in my belief that if the legislature puts a redistricting initiative on the ballot, I believe the people of the Golden State will do the right thing. I trust the voters of California more than I would ever trust Trump and his lackeys in Texas.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
9 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House
Meanwhile, national Democratic Party leaders are Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up There are no saints or villains in this saga. Republicans and Democrats are engaging in a bare-knuckled fight for power, and what each side condemns is Advertisement The cause of all this drama is not inherent Republican or Democratic perfidy. It is an institutional flaw: With only 435 seats, the US House is far too small — which means each congressional district is far too large. The average district now encompasses nearly 760,000 people. That is a constituency vastly greater than any member of Congress can effectively or fairly represent. And because congressional districts are so large, each one is a political prize well worth gerrymandering. When each district must corral so many people, a single line on the map has an outsize political impact. Under such circumstances, partisan cartography becomes irresistible — and bitter, recurring fights like the one in Texas are inevitable. Happily, there is a structural remedy that would dramatically curtail the constant court fights, political retaliation, and vicious maneuvering surrounding redistricting. Congress ought to expand the size of the House from the current 435 members to 1,500. No constitutional amendment would be needed — it would require only a simple statute to restore each House district to a more manageable size, and thereby make gerrymandering far less tempting. That would be a return to what the framers of the Constitution intended. The House of Representatives was conceived as Advertisement And there it froze. Congress didn't expand the House following the 1920 census, because of a political standoff. Many members resented the A House of 435 might have been workable during the Hoover administration. It makes no sense now. If the House were expanded to 1,500 members, the average congressional district would have about 225,000 people — still larger than its counterparts in many other modern democracies, but far more manageable than today's bloated mega-districts. Granted, that would require more chairs in the House chamber and perhaps smaller offices and staffs for each member. But the payoff would be enormous: Not only would the House be more representative, it would also be less susceptible to gerrymandering. Here's why: When each congressional district contains three-quarters of a million seats, a carefully crafted border can determine the balance of thousands of votes — enough to flip a seat. That makes each boundary line a powerful political weapon. But when districts are a third or a quarter of that size, no single line carries as much weight. Shifting a few neighborhoods or towns from one district to another would affect far fewer voters, making it harder for mapmakers to engineer outcomes with surgical precision. Smaller districts mean smaller levers — reducing the scope for mischief. Advertisement And the more districts there are, the less potent those engineering tactics become. Gerrymandering works best when the map has fewer, larger pieces — which makes it easier to 'pack' opposition voters into a handful of districts, and to 'crack' the rest among multiple other districts, thinning out their numbers to ensure that they lose everywhere else. But multiply the number of districts, and that strategy loses force. The cartographer's advantage fades as the map gets more granular. When each puzzle piece covers a smaller slice of territory, the lines become less predictable and harder to weaponize. Last but definitely not least, in a 1,500-member House, voters would be likelier to know their elected representative — and to be known in return. In districts limited to 225,000 constituents, there would be room for more local voices, more diversity of all kinds, more candidates who reflect the communities they serve. Much smaller districts means much less expensive campaigns — and lower barriers to entry for challengers. It also encourages lawmakers to stay grounded in the concerns of their neighbors rather than the noise of national partisanship. Congress blundered badly when it froze the House at 435 seats. The chaos emanating from Texas is only the latest consequence of that blunder. Advertisement It doesn't have to be this way. Enlarging the House to 1,500 members would end the gerrymandering wars. Better still, it would revive the ideal of a legislature that truly speaks for the people — restoring the people's House to its constitutional roots. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
9 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A brief history of Trump pretending not to know things
Less than a week after the Justice Department took the highly unusual step of sending Todd Blanche, deputy attorney general and Trump's former personal lawyer, to interview Maxwell for more than nine hours over two days, she was quietly moved from a federal minimum-security prison in Florida to a less-restrictive facility in Texas. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But according to Trump, that decision was news to him. Advertisement Perhaps the president really has no clue as to what's happening in his administration. But Trump's pleas of ignorance are an escape hatch he has deployed for years. Here's a brief history of notable moments in Trump's performative ignorance. The David Duke endorsement (2016): After Trump launched his first presidential campaign by excoriating Mexican immigrants and later promising to enact a Advertisement James Comey's firing (2017): Months into his first term, Trump dumped James Comey as FBI director. At the time, White House officials claimed that Trump fired Comey solely on the recommendation of deputy attorney general Hush money paid to Stormy Daniels (2018): Trump Advertisement Project 2025 (2024): At a Heritage Foundation event in 2022, Trump said the conservative group 'would lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.' Two years later, Trump Trump seems to treat ignorance — saying 'I don't know' or 'I didn't know'— as evidence of his innocence. He's testing that theory again as his self-inflicted Epstein scandal refuses to go away. But whether this tactic will allow him to dodge accountability this time, no one knows. Advertisement Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
New York Times
10 minutes ago
- New York Times
In a Trump-Putin Summit, Ukraine Fears Losing Say Over Its Future
For nearly three years of the war in Ukraine, Washington's rallying cry in backing a fight against a Russian invasion was 'no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine.' But when President Trump meets President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Alaska on Friday, the Ukrainians will not be there, barring any last-minute invitation. And Kyiv's swift rejection of Mr. Trump's declaration to reporters that he is already negotiating with the Russian leadership over what he vaguely called 'land swaps,' with no mention of the security guarantees or arms supplies for Ukraine, underscores the enormous risks for the Ukrainians — and the political perils for Mr. Trump. Ukraine's fear for these past six months has been that Mr. Trump's image of a 'peace accord' is a deal struck directly between him and Mr. Putin — much as Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill divided up Europe at the Yalta conference in 1945. That meeting has become synonymous with historical debates over what can go wrong when great powers carve up the world, smaller powers suffer the consequences and free people find themselves cast under authoritarian rule. Mr. Zelensky himself invited such comparisons in a speech to his people hours after Mr. Trump raised the specter of deciding Ukraine's fate in a one-on-one meeting in Alaska, territory that was once part of the Russian empire. (While Mr. Putin has made clear that he regards Ukraine as rightful Russian territory dating back to the days of Peter the Great, the Russian leader has not called for the reversal of the $7.2 million sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867, during a period of financial distress for the empire.) 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier,' Mr. Zelensky said, noting that the Ukrainian constitution prohibits such a deal. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
