A deal in sight? Colorado River talks are moving again, officials say
"We've heard about the stages of grief ... about denial and anger and the need to be at bargaining," said Chuck Cullom, executive director of the Upper Colorado River Commission. "Well, I believe the basin states are there."
Officials involved in tense negotiations over how to manage shortages on the Colorado River suggested that months of harsh talk and stalemates have ended and negotiators are exploring new options.
Federal officials indicated that even parts of the "Law of the River," a 100-year-old legal framework that governs Colorado River allocations, could change as a result of the negotiations.
'We're trying to pivot to something else and be creative, and we have good engagement on that right now," said Colby Pellegrino, deputy general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
While most of the negotiators from the seven Colorado River basin states did not attend the conference at the University of Colorado in Boulder, the speakers who did attend were cautiously optimistic about their chances at making a deal.
The states have been wrangling for two years over how to distribute water cuts as reservoir levels and stream flows have plummeted in the river. Existing operation guidelines for the river expire in 2026, and the federal government will impose its own regime of water cuts unless states can reach a deal. Now, officials are signaling that progress has resumed toward a deal.
Alternative urged: How will Arizona deal with Colorado River shortages? Cities need a 'Plan B,' expert says
The Colorado River is a critical source of water for Arizona, providing 36% of the state's water, according to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Populous counties in central and southern Arizona — Maricopa, Pinal and Pima — are the most vulnerable when it comes to water cuts as their water rights have lower priority.
Negotiators from the upper and lower basins of the Colorado River have blown through several informal deadlines to reach a deal, sniping at one another in public remarks and propping up their own proposals for shortage management. The debate often centered on whether upper basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) should take any administered water cuts, as lower basin states like Arizona have already taken cuts.
Now, the basin states have begun the process of 'letting go,' Pellegrino said, backing away from some of the ideas they clung to at the beginning of the process and imagining new compromises. The states, along with federal officials, have met every other week since the end of March, according to Scott Cameron, acting assistant secretary for water and science at the Department of the Interior.
Cameron said the Trump administration is looking to rework and expand the alternatives for river management that the Biden administration put forward in January. Cameron said Trump officials like Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are seeking to engage intensely and support Colorado River basin states in reaching a deal.
Although the administration has fired large numbers of federal employees working in water modeling, Cameron said he was working to shield this process from those cuts, and state representatives have said they are receiving strong services from federal agencies.
California's representative on the river, J.B. Hamby, said in an interview on June 5 that renewed support from federal officials has helped jump-start negotiations.
'For the longest time, states weren't meeting all that often, or were certainly not inviting the feds into the room," Hamby said. "Now that the Trump administration officials are actively engaged in our discussions, I think everyone who supports the basin-state process has seen that as a material benefit.'
Cameron said he has also met with several of the 30 tribes in the Colorado River basin to learn about their unique and differing positions and incorporate their views into official negotiations.
Less water: Worsening climate outlooks raise the stakes for an agreement on the Colorado River
The Colorado River is expected to carry about half of the water it should, according to the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center, pushing states dangerously close to trip wires for legal action under contracts that govern the river. Scientists expect climate change to bring more erratic flows to the river in the long term, with an overall decline in water levels.
Brian Richter, scientist and president of the nonprofit Sustainable Waters, presented preliminary estimates on June 5 that potentially a quarter of human water use in the Colorado River basin over the last decade has been unsustainable, meaning it is drawing on limited water reserves that natural water cycles have not replenished.
'There is a massive cultural change that has to happen in this space, and about how we use water, and that is going to affect the culture of every single water user,' Pellegrino said. "And we need to be doing that cultural change very rapidly."
Cameron indicated that the negotiations could mean big changes in the bedrock laws that govern the river, saying some of the legal framework defining river management can be changed by Congress or state legislatures. The Colorado River is governed by a long list of compacts, court decrees, and international agreements with Mexico.
"We don't take all aspects of what people lump together as the 'Law of the River' right now to be fixed," Cameron said. "If the needs of society change, we ought to be open to having a conversation about changing existing law."
Cameron said his team has notified federal lawmakers that they might seek congressional action in the spring of 2026. The federal team aims to have a final decision in place by the summer of that year.
Interested in stories about water? Sign up for AZ Climate, The Republic's free weekly environment newsletter.
But to even reach a state-approved deal, Pellegrino said, state negotiators need to be better shielded from stakeholders and interest groups in their states that keep squashing ideas for deals before they can be fleshed out.
'If every whisper of what we are working on results in every person who's worried about how it might affect them running and saying, 'This isn't the deal for us,' we're never going to get there,' Pellegrino said.
Cullom and Pellegrino said the basin is dealing with a hydrological reality in the river that no one can change.
'People are trying to turn this thing upside down and sideways, trying to find a unicorn," Cullom said. "But there is probably not an operational scheme that prevents us from the challenges that this drier future brings.'
Austin Corona covers environmental issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral. Send tips or questions to austin.corona@arizonarepublic.com.
Environmental coverage on azcentral.com and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust.
Follow The Republic environmental reporting team at environment.azcentral.com and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Colorado River negotiations are getting unstuck, officials say
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
3 days ago
- Forbes
Learned Observations in New Market Regulated Cannabis Policy
Original Title: There Is A Road, No Simple Highway: Learned Observations In New Market Commercial/Regulated Cannabis Policy Development The development of cannabis policy is an ever-evolving field, which has been sprung from night into the sun. See June, 2016: "Sprung From Night Into The Sun: An Examination of Colorado's Marijuana Regulatory Framework Since Legalization," Kentucky Journal for Equine, Agricultural and Natural Resources, Volume 8, Issue No. 2. The general tenets of the initial regulatory framework governing the regulated U.S. dispensary system, which remains federally illegal, was established (on average) a decade ago. Much has happened since then; markets have risen and fallen; the global cannabis supply chain has developed substantially; the plant is becoming commoditized. This so-called U.S. dispensary framework was a 'deal' between policy makers and stakeholders that would never be the accepted consensus today due to its oppressive taxation standards and unfriendly (to the market) regulations, which often go unnecessarily too far. Yet, that is the system that so many in the U.S. industry accept as the 'way it is supposed to be.' But the evolution of the global cannabis supply chain tells a different tale. In any event, much is overlooked when examining the policy pathway from grey/illicit market to regulated market. Following my graduate program at the University of Colorado at Denver's Graduate School of Public Affairs many years ago, I have spent the better part of the past twenty years working on cannabis policy in countless jurisdictions. After working internationally with dozens of governments and industry stakeholders over the most recent ten year period, I recognized that it is important to dissect and loosely examine a few things relevant to universal cannabis policy development – (i) the 'Why?'; (ii) the Existing Five Policy Lanes Countries Employ for Regulating Cannabis and its Byproducts; (iii) the Three Phases of Regulation; and, (iv) the Measurement of 'success.' First, it is essential to understand that every jurisdiction has a unique 'why?' as to its rationale for legalizing cannabis. These are never the exact same. Sometimes, it is to effectuate social justice of criminal justice reform; sometimes, it is to spur economic development, grow the tax base, and/or job growth; sometimes, it is part of a larger package of human rights reforms (such as what occurred in Uruguay); sometimes it is to create lawful pathways for the medical use of the plant; and, sometimes it is a combination of all of these factors, and others that may not seem so obvious. This fact, coupled with unique language barriers, cultural preference/differences, and the like, create an environment where anything can happen. But are there some commonalities in the international approach to cannabis policy development? 2.5 Policy Lanes Whether it is the primary impetus or not, economics plays a substantial part in assessing the mode and method to progress with cannabis legality. And an economic analysis is a good starting point. When estimating the Total Addressable Market (TAM) for the cannabis plant, it is essential to approach it as a commodity. A commodity market emerges when infrastructure, consumer demand, and a supportive regulatory environment align to create an efficient supply chain constituting various outputs of a known value. In the case of cannabis, this regulatory environment can be categorized into five (5) distinct "Policy Lanes," each shaping how the plant is produced, processed, and marketed. What I mean by 'Policy Lanes' is that there already exist viable regulatory pathways that can easily apply to cannabis regulation, without creating an entirely new 'cannabis legality' framework. The hypothesis being that it is extremely difficult, time consuming, and less desirable to enact entirely new comprehensive cannabis legislation rather than utilizing existing regulatory pathways (e.g., 'Lanes') that already can address the various and distinct uses of the cannabis plant – whether that be hemp or marijuana. My long term experiential observation is that choosing existing Lanes, rather than seeking to pass band-new cannabis legislative frameworks is far easier, fast, and preferable to the private sector, and to policy makers, and this is grounded in the fact that we really do not have a cogent universal model as to how to best regulate the uses of materials from the entire plant (be it hemp- or marijuana- sourced compounds). And so -- efficiency, policy-speak, and private market preference generally can all agree on using existing Lanes, rather than evaluating, drafting, creating, enacting, delegating, and organizing entirely new pathways. In other words, using what already exists and placing cannabis within those Lanes is preferred. There is no need to reinvent the wheel or to craft a 'perfect' policy solution or, worse yet, cutting and pasting from other unrelated jurisdictions. Instead, adopting features and placing oversight and authority with agencies from already existing Lanes/programs that have the same measure of success (see below) has been far more successful and expedient. Understanding these Policy Lanes is crucial for optimizing the supply chain and maximizing market potential. Each lane represents a unique pathway through which cannabis products reach end markets and identifying overlaps and conversion opportunities between these lanes is key to market development. By recognizing how regulatory frameworks influence market participation and access, stakeholders can better align their strategies to capture emerging opportunities and achieve long-term growth in the cannabis industry. To this end, it is important to note that the global landscape of cannabis policy is evolving rapidly, driven by increasing recognition of the plant's diverse applications across various sectors. However, the development of comprehensive cannabis regulations requires a structured approach that accounts for the different ways in which cannabis and its derivatives can be commercialized. This framework for understanding cannabis regulation through five distinct Policy Lanes: (1) over-the-counter cannabis; (2) general-use medical cannabis; (3) wellness and food products/nutraceuticals; (4) industrial applications; and (5) illicit markets. Each of these lanes presents unique regulatory challenges and opportunities, necessitating tailored policies to ensure both public safety and economic viability. Generally speaking, laws and regulations already exist that address each of these five Policy Lanes. And if the distinct frameworks already exist, it is far better to utilize them than create brand-new ones – hear that U.S. cannabis industry? The first Policy Lane pertains to over-the-counter cannabis, commonly referred to as adult use cannabis. This lane involves the commercialization of cannabis in its natural state for personal use. Governments opting to regulate cannabis in this category must implement policies that will ensure product safety, quality control, and consumption limitations to a lesser degree than General-Use Medical cannabis requires. Such regulations often mirror those applied to other consumer goods, requiring robust oversight mechanisms to protect public health while facilitating access to the market. These consumer goods include alcohol, tobacco, and dietary supplements, which are similarly regulated to balance safety concerns with consumer accessibility and market efficiency. The second Policy Lane is bifurcated between general-use medical and pharmaceutical cannabis, which encompasses the development of cannabis-based medicines. General-use medical-grade standards. This regulatory category involves rigorous clinical testing, precise dosing, and general-use medical prescriptions authorization by a qualified general-use medical practitioner licensed in the jurisdiction of issuance. Policies governing this lane must establish comprehensive frameworks to support research and development, ensuring that cannabis-derived general-use medical products meet the stringent production, safety, efficacy, and traceability requirements expected of general-use medical products. This lane differs significantly from over-the-counter cannabis, focusing on therapeutic applications and requiring a higher degree of regulatory oversight, and one which qualifies the purchaser based on some form of general-use medical professional referral (e.g., prescription or recommendation). The third Policy Lane focuses on wellness and food products derived from cannabis, particularly cannabinoids sourced from industrial cannabis[1]. This category has seen substantial growth in recent years, especially in jurisdictions like the United States following the passage of legislation such as the national agricultural policies adopted in 2014 and 2018 ('commonly referred to as the 'Farm Bills'). These policies have facilitated the extraction and commercialization of non-psychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol (CBD), for use in consumer products, as well as many other non-psychoactive cannabinoids (e.g., CBG and CBN). Regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), play a crucial role in developing guidelines for the production, labeling, and marketing of wellness and food products. Effective regulation in this lane is essential to ensure consumer safety and to support the growth of the industrial cannabis-derived product market. The fourth and most expansive Policy Lane pertains to industrial applications of cannabis, commonly referred to as industrial hemp. This lane encompasses the use of cannabis as an agricultural commodity in a wide range of industries, including the production of plastics, fuels, textiles, paper, automotive, construction and electronics. Estimates suggest that there are over 25,000 potential uses for industrial hemp, highlighting its versatility and economic potential. Policies supporting this lane must address agricultural standards, supply chain logistics, and the development of markets for hemp-based products without a direct method of consumption by a natural person. Industrial hemp policy is more mature globally yet is still evolving. Industrial hemp presents significant opportunities for sustainable development and climate change mitigation, making it a critical component of any comprehensive cannabis policy framework. The fifth Policy Lane includes the illicit unregulated and illegal sale of cannabis. This involves the use of untested and unproven products in the marketplace by individual users and constitutes criminal behavior. This Policy Lane has been regulated by and through prohibition and penalties both domestically and across international boundaries. This lane directly competes with the legal activities described above relative to the total addressable market described in this report; it cannot be overstated that biases rooted in this lane must be overcome to support the desired transitory effect. The key to addressing the unregulated and illicit sale of cannabis comes via providing consumers access to legal cannabis products and incentivizing them to participate legally by keeping barriers to access minimal. While the negative impacts of this Lane have been well documented in the 19th and 20th centuries, it is worth admiring the fact that this Lane offers a source of demand that can be leveraged to support various, positive returns on investment for public and private entities alike The importance of framing cannabis regulation within these five lanes lies in its practical application. Regulatory frameworks must not only address public health and safety concerns but also foster an environment conducive to economic growth and innovation. The commercial viability of cannabis-related industries relies on attracting investment, advancing research, and developing the necessary infrastructure to support a thriving market. By adopting a structured, multi-lane regulatory framework, governments can achieve a balance between public safety, economic opportunity, and social equity. The proposed framework also addresses a common challenge in cannabis policy reform: the emphasis on social justice as the primary driver of legalization efforts. While social justice considerations are undeniably important, they do not provide a sufficient foundation for building comprehensive legal, regulatory, and commercial frameworks. Successful cannabis reform must integrate social justice goals with practical regulatory policies that facilitate the development of sustainable industries. The five-lane framework offers a pragmatic approach that resonates with both policymakers and the business community, ensuring that cannabis reform is both equitable and economically viable. In conclusion, understanding the tradeoffs and impacts of these Five Policy Lanes is essential for governments seeking to enact effective cannabis reform. The jurisdiction need not begin an entirely new paradigm from scratch, but rather can satisfy all stakeholders by using existing Lanes. Doing so will prevent unnecessary delays in timing/enactment, prevent polarization of policy concepts, and will allow existing government agencies to integrate the plant into its/their existing regulatory structures, while not requiring a new agency, new funding, or the like. Each lane requires a distinct regulatory approach tailored to the specific characteristics and risks associated with the products and applications within that category. Policymakers must recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach to cannabis regulation is insufficient, and that the successful commercialization of the cannabis plant depends on the careful navigation of these distinct policy lanes. The five-lane regulatory framework for cannabis provides a structured approach to navigating the complexities of cannabis commercialization. By recognizing the distinct policy requirements for over-the-counter cannabis, general-use medical cannabis, wellness and food products, and industrial applications, governments can develop targeted regulations that promote public safety, economic growth, and social equity. This framework serves as a practical tool for policymakers seeking to enact comprehensive cannabis reform and unlock the full potential of the cannabis plant. (iii) The 3 Phases of Cannabis Policy Development I have observed that most jurisdictions do not have a (or even understand how to) plan for the development of the industry from inception to market-based correction (i.e., economic success); nor do many of them care. But this step is essential so as to not create a program destined to fail. As such, I have described the necessary phases for any jurisdiction in establishing a commercial marketplace are as follows: To establish a clear and cohesive approach, it is essential to align the jurisdiction's existing legal framework. And the following tasks become essential: These guidelines can ensure parity among participating jurisdictions and can harmonize access to international markets whilst eliminating most barriers to entry in advance; all-the-while tempering expectations of officials, stakeholders, and the public. (iv) Measurement of 'Success' And finally, before implementing a legalization measure with legislation and corresponding regulations, it is good to have an idea/definition of what 'success' means. In fact, it is not merely 'good,' but rather essential to identify the objectives and measurement thereof prior to proceeding on the enactment of a legislative scheme. Otherwise, how would one know if it is indeed successful, and this is important for politicians, agency heads, stakeholders, and the private sector. Again, this goes to the 'Why?' (described above) in many cases. It is essential to have a common understanding of successful implementation. Is it elimination/reduction of the black market? Is it conversion of the illicit market to the regulated market? Is it based on tax revenue or economic factors? Is it social equity based? And in the international sector, United Nations factors have been essential in defining success. Having experience with the UN Committee on Narcotic Drugs, it is an observation that purely economic factors are not a sufficient measurement of success. And purely social justice factors are also merely one isolated issue to be considered. The more comprehensive manner in which to measure success is based upon the fact that public health is addressed/improved, national security is somehow improved, and most importantly, a combination of cultural change and conversion of the traditional market to the regulated market; the latter being the most all-encompassing bell-weather for this analysis. Bottom line is that 'success' must be defined at the outset or, like in so many jurisdictions that have proceeded without learned advisory, the program is left to dangle and this exposure often leads to the death of the experiment. ******* Cannabis policy development is a road, but no simple highway. In fact, it is a wholly complex and esoteric process which has numerous jurisdiction-specific factors to consider. However, with some of the foregoing issues in the front of mind, the process can be achievable, measurable, and successful. I urge each jurisdiction experiencing challenges and/or considering embarking on this journey of cannabis legalization to work with experts who exhibit a track record of policy, regulatory, market, and international trade-based factors. Without that, programs will flounder, if not fail. Only time will tell. [1] Any cannabis cultivated cannabis with a verified THC allowance that varies by jurisdiction on a 0.2-1.0% threshold. This definition would control any use of the phrase 'cannabis' to be varieties/supply chains exceeding this THC threshold.


Chicago Tribune
26-07-2025
- Chicago Tribune
How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections
WASHINGTON — Redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau or in response to a court ruling. Now, Texas Republicans want to break that tradition — and other states could follow suit. President Trump has asked the Texas Legislature to create districts, in time for next year's midterm elections, that will send five more Republicans to Washington and make it harder for Democrats to regain the majority and blunt his agenda. The state has 38 seats in the House. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after the death of a Democrat. 'There's been a lot more efforts by the parties and political actors to push the boundaries – literally and figuratively – to reconfigure what the game is,' said Doug Spencer, Rothgerber Jr. Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado. Other states are waiting to see what Texas does and whether to follow suit. The rules of redistricting can be vague and variable; each state has its own set of rules and procedures. Politicians are gauging what voters will tolerate when it comes to politically motivated mapmaking. Here's what to know about the rules of congressional redistricting: Every decade, the Census Bureau collects population data used to divide the 435 House seats among the 50 states based on the updated head count. It's a process known as reapportionment. States that grew relative to others might gain a seat at the expense of those whose populations stagnated or declined. States use their own procedures to draw lines for the assigned number of districts. The smallest states receive just one representative, which means the entire state is a single congressional district. Some state constitutions require independent commissions to devise the political boundaries or to advise the legislature. When legislatures take the lead, lawmakers can risk drawing lines that end up challenged in court, usually for violating the Voting Rights Act. Mapmakers can get another chance to resubmit new maps. Sometimes, judges draw the maps on their own. By the first midterm elections after the latest population count, each state is ready with its maps, but those districts do not always stick. Courts can find that the political lines are unconstitutional. There is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons, such as increasing representation by the party in power. 'The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,' Spencer said. 'And then some state legislatures got a little clever and said, well it doesn't say we can't do it more.' Some states do have laws that would prevent midcycle redistricting or make it difficult to do so in a way that benefits one party. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., has threatened to retaliate against the GOP push in Texas by drawing more favorable Democratic seats in his state. That goal, however, is complicated by a constitutional amendment that requires an independent commission to lead the process. Texas has done it before. When the Legislature failed to agree on a redistricting plan after the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in with its own map. Republican Tom DeLay of Texas, who was then the U.S. House majority leader, thought his state should have five more districts friendly to his party. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,′′ he said at the time. Statehouse Democrats protested by fleeing to Oklahoma, depriving the Legislature of enough votes to officially conduct any business. But DeLay eventually got his way, and Republicans replaced Democrats in five seats in 2004. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not get involved in debates over political gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts for partisan gain. In that decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said redistricting is 'highly partisan by any measure.' But courts may demand new maps if they believe the congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads House Democrats' campaign arm, indicated at a Christian Science Monitor event that if Texas follows through on passing new maps, Democratic-led states would look at their own political lines. 'If they go down this path, absolutely folks are going to respond across the country,' DelBene said. 'We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine voices of the American people.' In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently joined Newsom in expressing openness to taking up mid-decade redistricting. But state laws mandating independent commissions or blunting the ability to gerrymander would come into play. Among Republican-led states, Ohio could try to further expand the 10-5 edge that the GOP holds in the House delegation; a quirk in state law requires Ohio to redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was considering early redistricting and 'working through what that would look like.'

26-07-2025
How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections
WASHINGTON -- Redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau or in response to a court ruling. Now, Texas Republicans want to break that tradition — and other states could follow suit. President Trump has asked the Texas Legislature to create districts, in time for next year's midterm elections, that will send five more Republicans to Washington and make it harder for Democrats to regain the majority and blunt his agenda. The state has 38 seats in the House. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after the death of a Democrat. 'There's been a lot more efforts by the parties and political actors to push the boundaries – literally and figuratively – to reconfigure what the game is,' said Doug Spencer, Rothgerber Jr. Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado. Other states are waiting to see what Texas does and whether to follow suit. The rules of redistricting can be vague and variable; each state has its own set of rules and procedures. Politicians are gauging what voters will tolerate when it comes to politically motivated mapmaking. Here's what to know about the rules of congressional redistricting: Every decade, the Census Bureau collects population data used to divide the 435 House seats among the 50 states based on the updated head count. It's a process known as reapportionment. States that grew relative to others might gain a seat at the expense of those whose populations stagnated or declined. States use their own procedures to draw lines for the assigned number of districts. The smallest states receive just one representative, which means the entire state is a single congressional district. Some state constitutions require independent commissions to devise the political boundaries or to advise the legislature. When legislatures take the lead, lawmakers can risk drawing lines that end up challenged in court, usually for violating the Voting Rights Act. Mapmakers can get another chance to resubmit new maps. Sometimes, judges draw the maps on their own. By the first midterm elections after the latest population count, each state is ready with its maps, but those districts do not always stick. Courts can find that the political lines are unconstitutional. There is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons, such as increasing representation by the party in power. 'The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,' Spencer said. 'And then some state legislatures got a little clever and said, well it doesn't say we can't do it more.' Some states do have laws that would prevent midcycle redistricting or make it difficult to do so in a way that benefits one party. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., has threatened to retaliate against the GOP push in Texas by drawing more favorable Democratic seats in his state. That goal, however, is complicated by a constitutional amendment that requires an independent commission to lead the process. Texas has done it before. When the Legislature failed to agree on a redistricting plan after the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in with its own map. Republican Tom DeLay of Texas, who was then the U.S. House majority leader, thought his state should have five more districts friendly to his party. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,′′ he said at the time. Statehouse Democrats protested by fleeing to Oklahoma, depriving the Legislature of enough votes to officially conduct any business. But DeLay eventually got his way, and Republicans replaced Democrats in five seats in 2004. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not get involved in debates over political gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts for partisan gain. In that decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said redistricting is ' highly partisan by any measure. ' But courts may demand new maps if they believe the congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads House Democrats' campaign arm, indicated at a Christian Science Monitor event that if Texas follows through on passing new maps, Democratic-led states would look at their own political lines. 'If they go down this path, absolutely folks are going to respond across the country,' DelBene said. 'We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine voices of the American people.' In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently joined Newsom in expressing openness to taking up mid-decade redistricting. But state laws mandating independent commissions or blunting the ability to gerrymander would come into play. Among Republican-led states, Ohio could try to further expand the 10-5 edge that the GOP holds in the House delegation; a quirk in state law requires Ohio to redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was considering early redistricting and 'working through what that would look like.'