
Some Democrats may finally be ready to play dirty over redistricting
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to retaliate at Texas by forcing a state referendum or legislation to redraw districts to give Democrats a five- to seven-seat boost in Congress.A new kind of political battle is emerging between America's parties — one centers on the composition of Congress and congressional redistricting. This process usually occurs every decade, after the US Census finishes its work and releases new demographic information that states use to reconfigure how the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are divided among the 50 states.
But this month, Texas Republicans are scrambling those norms.
Republican lawmakers have begun fielding proposals for the GOP-controlled legislature to redraw their congressional maps in the middle of the decade to give the national party an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections.
It's a blatant power play — jump-started by President Donald Trump's desire to offset potential losses next year and win a bigger Republican majority in the House for the second half of his term. At the moment, it looks likely that Republicans might lose some ground in Congress, as has been the trend for presidents' parties for the last 70 years.
The Logoff
The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
This mid-decade redistricting effort is not the first time Texas Republicans have aggressively gerrymandered seats to boost their party's representation in Congress, but it is abnormal for redistricting to happen this early, or as a direct response to a president's wishes to gain an electoral advantage. And it doesn't seem like Texas will be the only Republican-controlled state to try this.
This sudden gamesmanship is forcing national and state-level Democrats to consider their own tit-for-tat, mid-decade redistricting efforts — and to confront a harsh reality. Many Democrats lack the political will to bend norms in response to these Republican efforts. And those who do will face steep legal and political obstacles, including from their own party.
How Republicans are pressing their advantage
Republicans have the upper hand on redistricting. In the majority of states across the country, state legislatures have the primary control and power to draw district lines. That includes the three states where Republicans have signaled they will try to redraw maps before the 2026 midterms — Texas, Ohio, and Missouri — all in which the GOP has unified control of the legislature and the governor's office.
Through redistricting these states alone, Republicans would be able to gain enough seats to secure a majority after midterm elections. They'd gain about five seats in Texas, anywhere from one to three seats in Ohio, and one seat in Missouri. Republicans currently have a three-seat majority in the House, as a result of resignations and deaths, which shrinks to a two-seat majority if all those vacancies are filled.
And there are still more Republican-run states that could be tapped. As Punchbowl News reported this week, five Democratic-held seats could be threatened in Florida if Gov. Ron DeSantis agrees to a mid-decade redraw. And New Hampshire's governor, Kelly Ayotte, could still be convinced by the White House to consider state Republicans' past plans to create another Republican-friendly seat in the state.
Other Republican-leaning states — like Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, and Nebraska — are limited from redrawing maps before 2026 by Democratic governors, more moderate Republican legislators and state courts, or the fact that their legislatures aren't in session.
Democrats in the three states that will likely create new GOP seats have few options to resist or block redraws. In Texas, Democrats have considered boycotting or preventing the legislature from voting by leaving the state — though Republicans are trying to force them to participate by delaying a vote on flood disaster relief and recovery funding until after their redistricting effort passes. Democrats in Ohio and Missouri have no similar leverage.
That leaves out-of-state Democrats as the next line of defense. But they face obstacles there.
Democrats are limited by their own advocacy
Democrats hoping to strike back have many fewer options. They're limited by the number of states they control, the way those states handle redistricting, and the political will of legislators who view this kind of redistricting as beyond the pale.
Democrats have unified control in 15 states, out of which they could probably only gain seats in about nine states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But politicians trying to redraw districts in any of these states will face steep hurdles.
In California, Colorado, New York, New Jersey, and Washington, independent or bipartisan commissions have the power to draw congressional maps, not state legislatures. Those commissions were set up after years of bipartisan advocacy for fair representation and liberal activism for better government accountability and transparency. They are enshrined by state law or were set up by state ballot measures, and would require constitutional amendments, a statewide referendum, or court challenges to return redistricting power to the state legislature.
That includes California — the state with the largest population — where Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to retaliate at Texas by forcing a state referendum or legislation to redraw districts to give Democrats a five- to seven-seat boost. Newsom hasn't yet presented a solid case or plan for how he'd go about doing this, however. And he faces bipartisan opposition to his idea.
Other states essentially have prohibitions on mid-decade or early redistricting efforts, Dan Vicuña, a redistricting expert at the government accountability organization Common Cause, told me. The state constitutions of Washington and New Jersey, Vicuña said, contain provisions that limit redistricting to the year immediately following the census, and limit intervention before that time.
That leaves Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and Oregon as the Democratic states where early redistricting could likely be accomplished with fewer obstacles. Already, some Maryland Democrats are signaling they would try to squeeze one more Democratic seat by redrawing their district lines. National Democrats have said they'll try to gain a seat in Minnesota, though they'll have to wait until state Democrats regain their majority in the senate, where a Democratic lawmaker resigned this week, tying the chamber.
Democrats may have no choice but to try redistricting
For as much bluster as Democrats are making about trying to retaliate, Republicans are actually taking the steps to do early redistricting. Congressional Democrats, for now, are trying to build support among governors and state lawmakers to engage in this political back-and-forth.
According to CNN, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his advisers are exploring legal ways to redraw maps in California, New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, and Washington, but those details have yet to be made public.
But to stay in the game, Democrats may have to abandon their own rules.
The Trump-era GOP has shown their willingness to push the bounds of political norms and bend institutions. There are valid, long-term concerns about what this kind of ad-hoc redistricting will mean for elections and trust in government in the future — what Vicuña described as a 'race to the bottom' — but Democrats, at least in Congress, are accepting that playing fair, or by old norms, isn't enough.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
These Pictures Of Trump's Finished White House Rose Garden Patio Are Going Viral For All Of The Wrong Reasons
As you all know by now, Donald Trump has paved over the White House Rose Garden lawn. Why? Because it's being modeled after his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida, duh. The famous garden was redesigned by Jackie Kennedy in the 1960s to add that lawn, some trees, and more flowers. That layout has remained largely unchanged, like here's a picture from the 2010s: Here's Obama on it: And then, as you may remember, Melania Trump did her own remodel of it in 2020 when she took out some trees and added in that limestone path: Well, now we've got a patio. ABC News' Chief Washington Correspondent posted pictures of the "new Rose Garden:" jonkarl/Twitter: @jonkarl As you can see, the sewer drainage is mini American flags. And it's A LOT of concrete. Perfect for those DC summers! Needless to say, people aren't big fans. "'Garden.' I do not think that word means what you think it means," one person pointed out. "Who in god's name thought this was a good idea?" another person asked. And a bunch of people are wondering what the heck is up with the hatred of grass: "Why do they hate grass?" Then you have the comparisons. This person said it looked like a food court during Covid. Another person said it looked like a drained pool at a bankrupt casino. And this person said it reminded them of an "overpriced wedding venue in New Jersey." One small detail people are pointing out is the position/design of the sewer drain, "Trump put his Presidential seal right next to a sewer drain. Feels right." "The 'Stars & Stripes' drainage seems appropriate.'" And finally, you have the people hoping the next President tears it up: "We're tearing it out and putting the roses back in beginning on January 21, 2029, right?" "The next president should rip this up and put the garden back. He really has no sense of taste, and I say this as a guy whose house is a monument to my love of kitsch and mid-century American barcaloungers." Thoughts?


Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
Voting Rights Act's 60th anniversary comes amid uncertainty
Barriers that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to eliminate have reappeared in modern forms as the country marks its 60th anniversary. The big picture: A backlash to the 2020 racial reckoning has made it almost impossible for any bipartisan effort to renew the Voting Rights Act — even though the country is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever. The big picture: President Trump continues to push baseless claims about voter fraud while pressuring states like Texas to redraw congressional district boundaries with little consideration to historic racial discrimination. In March, Trump signed an executive order to tighten voting restrictions — including calls for proof of citizenship to vote. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE), a Republican-led bill that would codify those requirements into law, passed the House in April but stalled in the Senate. Meanwhile, GOP-leaning states also have passed bills in recent years that critics argue impose new restrictions on Black and Indigenous voters. The latest: Earlier this week, Sen. Raphael Warnock reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, backed by Senate leaders and civil rights groups. The bill would restore federal oversight of voting changes in states with histories of discrimination — and ban voter roll purges for missed elections. Multiple groups promoted its introduction to Congress, but it's unlikely to pass either of the GOP-controlled chambers. What they're saying:"We're going to continue to fight for that bill, even though it's an uphill climb — particularly because of the Senate filibuster," National Urban League president Marc Morial told Axios. Morial says every Republican president since its passage has signed every extension, but now it's a partisan issue fueled by far-right movements. "This is a modern-day power grab." The other side: Some Republicans contend that the voting changes are "common sense" reforms to require ID and prevent noncitizens from voting — which is exceptionally rare and illegal. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told Axios earlier this year that voting rights groups' concerns about such changes were "absurd armchair speculation." Yes, but: Older Black Americans, especially in the South, are being disproportionately targeted by new documentation requirements, Color Of Change PAC national director Jamarr Brown told Axios. That's because rural, poor areas like the "Black Belt" of Alabama and Mississippi lack the infrastructure to get voters the required documents in a timely and easy fashion. Arizona and Montana have passed new laws barring ballot collection important to Native American voters living in isolated regions, since they lack reliable mail service. "This isn't about proof of citizenship. This is about eliminating people from the electorate… to get a desired political outcome," Brown said. Between the lines: Since taking office, Trump has attempted to reverse many of the gains made during the Civil Rights Movement and unravel the late President Lyndon B. Johnson's civil rights legacy from six decades ago. The clawback on voting rights comes as the Trump administration also pulls back on civil rights enforcement and focuses on " anti-white racism" rather than discrimination against people of color. The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday released new guidelines for recipients of federal funding and directed them not to be involved in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ("DEI") programs. Flashback: Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act on Aug. 6, 1965, after the attack on unarmed peaceful demonstrators in Selma, Ala. Johnson had encouraged the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to march for voting rights to sway the public. Stunning stat: Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the number of Black Americans elected in the U.S. has shot up from just a few in 1964 to about 9,000. Most Black Americans are aligned with the Democratic Party, but Black and Latino Republicans have won high-profile races in Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico and California. The bottom line: Voter suppression efforts now target Latinos, Asian Americans, and young voters, alongside Black communities.


CNBC
12 minutes ago
- CNBC
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a "mountain of evidence" that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. "If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion," the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guard and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many of whom have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend on June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, "I was born here in the states, East LA bro!" They want to "send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. "It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution," attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. "Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion," Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. "No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all," Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a "broad profile" and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors "cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status." She also asked: "What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a "victory for the rule of law" and said the city will protect residents from the "racial profiling and other illegal tactics" used by federal agents.