'We rely on that.' Stark libraries worried about potential cut in state revenue
Leaders of Stark County library systems said potential cuts could greatly impact services.
"We rely on that," said Mary Ellen Icaza, executive director and CEO of Stark Library, which has 10 locations across the county.
The Public Library Fund covers about 37% to 38% of Stark Library's operating budget.
"Our operating budget is how we keep our locations going and how we are able to provide our collections, resources and services," she said.
The fund covers roughly 66% of Louisville Public Library's operating budget, Director Brock Hutchison said. He said if the House budget passes, changes would need to be made.
"It's hard for me to say exactly what would happen," Hutchison said. "We'd be looking at some kind of cut."
Library cuts? Funding for Ohio libraries at risk of being slashed. Stark libraries need support | Opinion
Under the current system, the Public Library Fund gets 1.7% of the revenue from the state's General Revenue Fund, which mostly comes from sales and income taxes. That money is then divided among Ohio's 88 counties using a formula.
Under Gov. Mike DeWine's proposed state budget, the Public Library Fund's distribution would've been increased to 1.75% of the General Revenue Fund, but the House plan reverses course.
The House proposal would change library funding to a line-item on the state budget.
By dollar amount, it would cut funding from an estimated $530 million in 2025 to $485 million in 2026, according to reporting by the Columbus Dispatch. A House GOP spokeswoman told the Dispatch that the $530 million funding figure for the current year is an estimate that has yet to be finalized.
Compared to DeWine's proposal, the House proposal gives Ohio libraries $100 million less in the next two years. The GOP-controlled House is scheduled to vote on the budget Wednesday.
According to the Ohio Department of Taxation, Stark County received an estimated $15.7 million last year from the Public Library Fund, and is expected to receive about $16.4 million this year.
Icaza said the move to eliminate the Public Library Fund was "fairly shocking" and has caused concern for local libraries across the state.
"We're keeping a close eye on everything," she said. "It's very important that we're here for our community and can provide the services the community needs."
Hutchison said his main concern is that cuts to state funding could impact how Ohio libraries work together to provide resources.
"Ohio always has some of the top libraries, if not the top libraries, in the country by usage and what we're able to offer," he said. "There's so many resource sharing opportunities. If you come into the Louisville Public Library, you can borrow from over 100 libraries across the state, and we'll have those items for you in a day of two."
The state funding makes it possible, Hutchison said.
"We're all funded together, and we're able to collaborate," he said. "It's been a legacy for Ohio's public libraries. Without state funding, or without us being part of the General Revenue Fund, I don't know how that continues."
Louisville Public Library has a 1-mill renewal levy on the May 6 ballot. The uncertainty of state funding makes passing it all the more important, Hutchison said.
"It's a third of our budget, about $360,000 a year that we can count on over the next five years," he said. "It's critical. It's more critical now than ever."
The renewal levy is not a tax increase. Louisville just opened its new library. Hutchison said they will be careful with spending amid the uncertainty.
"Anyone in the public sector always pays attention to tax cuts and bills and budgets in the federal, state and local government," he said. "We live within our means."
Libraries across Stark County have asked their residents to pay attention to the state budget.
Icaza said they are working to try to change the budget and reinstate the Public Library Fund in the final version.
"This is very early in the budget process," she said. "We are trying very hard to mobilize and, you know, stand together as the Ohio public library community."
Stark Library has been doing a campaign asking residents to call their state representatives and tell them to support the Public Library Fund. So far, she's been impressed with the response from the community.
"I am very gratified by the support that the community has shown us," Icaza said.
Reach Grace at 330-580-8364 or gspringer@gannett.com. Follow her on X @GraceSpringer16.
This article originally appeared on The Repository: Stark County libraries respond to potential cuts to state funds
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
How Ukraine's Critical 'Fortress Belt' Could Be Lost Under Putin's Demands
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Kremlin demands for Ukraine to cede territory in the Donetsk region to Russia for a ceasefire could hand Moscow a big battlefield advantage, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has said. Ahead of a summit between President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska next week, reports cited by the ISW say the fate of Ukrainian territory Russia partially occupies could be given up to Moscow in exchange for an end to the fighting. The Washington, D.C, think tank said that surrendering strategically vital unoccupied territory in the Donetsk region could force Ukraine to abandon its main defensive line in the region known as the "fortress belt." Newsweek has contacted the Ukrainian Defense Ministry for comment. Ukrainian troops search for Russian reconnaissance devices using anti-aircraft FPV drones on July 18, 2025 in Donetsk Region, near Kostiantynivka Frontline, Ukraine. Ukrainian troops search for Russian reconnaissance devices using anti-aircraft FPV drones on July 18, 2025 in Donetsk Region, near Kostiantynivka Frontline, It Matters The fortress belt is made up of four large cities and other towns that run north to south over 30 miles along Donetsk's H-20 Kostyantynivka-Slovyansk highway and has proved to be an obstacle to Russian territorial ambitions since 2014. Trump has said peace talks in Alaska on August 15 would likely discussing "some swapping of territories." Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has repeatedly rejected this move, citing the Ukrainian Constitution but the ISW report outlines its battlefield implications. What To Know Kremlin officials want Ukraine to cede Crimea and all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts that comprise the Donbas region, as well as freeze other parts of the front line in a ceasefire, Bloomberg, citing unnamed sources, said, according to the ISW. Such a move would include Kyiv withdrawing troops from Ukrainian-controlled territory in the Donbas, which Moscow has tried and failed to capture. This would hand Russia control of the main fortified defensive line in the Donetsk region which Ukraine has spent over a decade reinforcing. But handing over the whole region for a ceasefire with no final peace settlement would allow Moscow's forces to renew their attacks on much more favorable terms without any further struggle for the territory where they are trying to envelop from the southwest, the ISW said. Russian forces failed to envelop all of Ukraine's fortress belt in 2022, and such an operation would likely take years and involve high personnel and equipment losses, the think tank said. Ceding Ukrainian-held parts of the Donetsk region would allow Moscow to avoid this complication and let its forces go to the border of the region, which is significantly less defensible than the current line. This would force Ukraine to built fortifications to be built along the Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk border areas, the terrain of which is poorly suited to act as a defensive line, the ISW said. Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a Security Council meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow on August 8, 2025. Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a Security Council meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow on August 8, think tank said Russian forces will almost certainly violate any future ceasefire or peace agreement and renew military aggression unless a peace agreement includes robust monitoring mechanisms and security guarantees for Ukraine, This highlights the battlefield as well as diplomatic stakes in the coming summit between Trump and Putin on August 15. In an article for the Substack Faridaily, Russia watchers Farida Rustamova and Margarita Liutova said their sources in Moscow said the U.S. does not understand that Putin cannot pause the war without something he can sell to the Russian public as a win. In comments sent to Newsweek, John Herbst, from the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center said that territorial concessions to Moscow are "front-loaded, but the critical things that Moscow must accept will be handled in subsequent peace negotiations." These include Moscow's response to the U.S. and NATO arming of Ukraine, as well as the potential stationing of European peacekeepers in Ukraine. But a temporary ceasefire should not be confused for a lasting peace, Herbst added as Putin's goal to get political control of Ukraine. What People Are Saying The Institute for the Study of War said on Friday: "The surrender of the rest of Donetsk Oblast as the prerequisite of a ceasefire with no commitment to a final peace settlement ending the war would position Russian forces extremely well to renew their attacks on much more favorable terms. "Conceding such a demand would force Ukraine to abandon its "fortress belt," the main fortified defensive line in Donetsk Oblast since 2014 — with no guarantee that fighting will not resume." John Herbst, senior director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center said the ceasefire terms "reflect what Putin is willing to accept and do now. It says nothing about what he will do in the future." What Happens Next On Saturday, Zelensky has reiterated Ukraine's unwillingness to cede territory for peace, which will add to the anticipation over whether next Friday's summit in Alaska between Putin and Trump can yield a breakthrough.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Trump Is a ‘Totem for Wealth.' What Happens if the Economy Crashes?
transcript Trump Is a 'Totem for Wealth.' What Happens if the Economy Crashes? All right, Jamelle, I need to ask about the hat. So it says 'Leguminati' and it's from the company Rancho Gordo. And it's sortof like you're part of the bean Illuminati. Wait, you're part of the secret bean power structure. Yeah yeah. OK, well, the White House wrecking ball just keeps on swinging this summer as President Trump pursues his passion for undermining key American institutions. Just the past couple of weeks, we've seen the White House Fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency responsible for providing unbiased info on the labor market, because the president was displeased with the jobs report. Meanwhile — and this is my personal obsession — Republican State lawmakers in Texas at Trump's command redrew the state's congressional map to give the G.O.P. five more house seats. Now, practically speaking, these moves don't seem to have much to do with each other, but they both spotlight just how far this president will go to destroy public trust in vital institutions. And that is what I want to talk about today. So once again, I feel the need to say that we are recording this on Thursday morning. So by the time you hear us God knows where the chaos will have taken us. So let's go ahead and get into it. Guys, are these episodes part of a larger strategy to challenge the norms of power and political dynamics in the U.S.? Jamelle, why don't you just kick us off with this. Sure I think it's always important not to attribute too much intentionality to the specific person of Donald Trump. Do I think Donald Trump is most interested in maintaining maximum autonomy? He wants to be able to do whatever he wants whenever he feels the need to do it. Yes. A byproduct of that is this assault on institutions. But I think it's worth remembering — or this is, I guess, my view — that him going after district redistricting in the country, him being obsessed with tariffs, those I think in his mind, aren't related to each other. There's no logical connection between them. He's obsessed with tariffs as he's been basically for 40 years. And he doesn't want to lose control of the House next year, knowing that losing control of the House not only puts an end to his legislative agenda such that it exists, but exposes him to political vulnerability. So he wants to do both of these things. And in the process of doing both of these things, he has no real interest in regular procedures or Democratic give and take or anything. So he's demolishing institutions. And so they're related in that way. But that relation is like our interpretation. I don't think it's something that he himself, envisions. Steve, do you think it's all just capriciousness? Well, I think there's an element of capriciousness, but I think there's also an element of intentionality. And I think I'd I certainly agree with everything Jamelle said. But I'd put it also in this context, which is the difference between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0. Trump 1.0 operated vaguely within some set of norms that we're used to. He didn't try to fire the head of the BLS or this or that. And Trump 2.0. He has this idea that he was elected with this extraordinary mandate, and he thinks it's empowered him to put anybody he wants in any job that he wants. And so far, of course, the Senate has gone along with him in virtually every respect, and he feels there are no guardrails and he can just do what he wants. And that's the way he's been operating. So the way I look at it is obviously this is all about him getting to do whatever he wants without anybody saying no. But I also think that one of the things that he's worked on since he got into office, even before, is undermining all other sources of authority, not just in terms of what kind of power they have, but also how people view them. He wants everybody to distrust the Department of Justice or the courts or certainly the media, because he wants them to be viewed as illegitimate, which just makes him the only source that his people look to. And I do think that this kind of falls into the category of if you can make everything look super partisan and super sketchy, that's just in service of his greater power grab. So that's how I think of in terms more of a broad picture on this. But getting back to the economic, you know, the Bureau of Labor statistics stuff, Steve, you're an economics guru here. What is your view on him booting the head of that agency in. What's sure smells like the politicization of a department that's previously operated above the partisan fray. I mean, our colleague Tom Friedman wrote that of all the terrible things Trump has said and done as president, the most dangerous one just happened on Friday. So what say you to what's going on here. We can debate whether it's the most dangerous thing that happened. It may well be. But it's certainly right up there. It's quite extraordinary that the Labor Department comes out with a set of statistics, that it compiles the same way it compiles them every month. It's important without getting into too far into the weeds on this, to explain to your viewers and listeners how this works. It is not the head of the BLS waking up in the morning and deciding, well, this is how many jobs we created last month. This is a process that has gone on this for 100 years, in which two different sets of surveys are done, compiled by career members of the BLS and then released to the public. The same process every month, forever and ever. And so it is. It is beyond. It is beyond imagination that these statistics could have possibly been manipulated. There have been attacks on the BLS before. In 2012, Jack Welch, well lauded CEO of General Electric, claimed that in the run up to Obama's re-election, the BLS had manipulated the unemployment number to show it going below 8 percent and he didn't believe it had gone below 8 percent So the BLS has had these kinds of attacks before, but this is certainly one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen, where the president literally just woke up and fired the head of the BLS and claimed all the numbers were made up, which, as I just said, not a single economist. Not a single expert. Not anybody who's ever known anything about the BLS would have ever suggested that was possible. Can I just real quick jump on one of my hobby horses here. Oh please do. Please O.K. Steve mentioned earlier that the president seems to have this belief that he can of fire anyone in the executive branch and the entire federal bureaucracy and replace him with whomever he deems appropriate, kind of irrespective of what Congress has said. And this is like a view that, very conservative legal scholars have. It's part of the Unitary Executive argument that the executive branch basically is contained within the person of the president. The president exercises the whole of the executive power, and that this gives the president broad powers of removal. And Trump is claiming basically unlimited powers of removal. And part of the argument for this is that it enhances political accountability, the president being democratically accountable to the American people, giving him this kind of broader, almost unlimited removal power, and thus enhances the accountability of executive branch officials for the American people. But you'll note, with the removal of the head of the BLS, that the issue here isn't that person's performance as it relates to the American public. That person is doing their job as spelled out in the legislative directions given to the BLS, as spelled out in the accumulated tradition of how one does things at the BLS. The issue for the former head of the agency is that they were not doing what Trump wanted them to do. So she is removed because a lack of accountability. You could say to Trump in Trump's personal political interests, not those of the American people. And I think that's an important nuance to capture that this removal power is not being used to enhance accountability to the American public. This removal power is being used to discipline officials who are not obeying or following or enhancing Trump's personal political standing. And that is my hobby horse. Well, I love that hobby horse. Steve, you're in touch with CEOs and business leaders. What are you hearing from them. What has them worried about all this. Well, with respect to the BLS specifically, they are appalled, taken aback, shocked as everyone is. I was just at a conference with a lot of CEOs, economists, journalists, people like that, and everybody is scratching their head in amazement that this could go on, but it's part of a broader picture that is worrying CEOs, which is simply the unpredictability, the lack of guardrails. The government by tweet, the tariffs are on. The tariffs are off. We're going to put a percent tariff on Brazil because we don't like the way the former president's been treated. And it is really it is really created a climate of uncertainty and unhappiness in the business community. That's quite substantial. So you mentioned tariffs to what are the potential long term or at least longer term effects because we're talking broadly about power. But you also have very specific, very concrete repercussions when it comes to the economy. What is the damage that's being done that will outlast this moment. You think, well, let's talk about the numbers that were actually released before the head of the BLS got fired. They showed a substantial deceleration in job growth, not just for last month, but then they revised down the two prior months to show a very small amount of job growth over the last three months. And that is worrisome that suggests that the labor market is weakening significantly. And if you talk anecdotally to CEOs, they will tell you that their hiring plans have come down substantially. If you talk to any young person who's out in the job market right now, they will probably tell you that the job market has gotten a lot tougher. But I think clearly from as I talk to CEOs, they have all cut back their hiring plans, in part because of the uncertainty around the tariffs. And the damage that they believe the tariffs will ultimately do to the economy. And I'll make one last point about this, which is historically, and I'm not here to tell you, I know for sure that this time will be the same or different. Historically, when unemployment numbers have gotten revised one way or the other, up or down by a significant amount, it can often portend a trend. It can often be an early indicator of a trend. And so the fact that you've had such significant downward revisions for two prior months, as well as a poor number for the most recent month has got a lot of people very, very nervous about the state of this economy. It's also I mean, the president doesn't understand this. His advisors are too sycophantic to really, I think, make the argument to him. But this is also detrimental to his own political interests. There's the phrase, the aphorism, the map is not the territory. You can change the numbers they report to make you look better. But that doesn't change the underlying reality of what's happening in the economy or the underlying reality of what's happening in anything. If you're going to change the number to juke the Stax stats, if you will. And so the president can put pressure on the nation's statisticians to make him look good. But if the underlying conditions are actually on the downturn, if things are actually getting worse for people, then the only thing he's done has made it more difficult for his government to respond to whatever is bubbling up from the surface. Well, that's what I was going to ask you both, is that this move by Trump spotlights his panic about what's happening, certainly how it will impact his party's fortunes and whether he keeps a death grip on the government going forward. I think our assumption has always been that no matter what the numbers say, if people start to feel some pain, it's going to come back and then you will start to see some pushback. I mean, do you think that the tariffs and what we've got coming and the softening job numbers are the beginning of what Trump has been worried about or at least what his party has been worried about in terms of people actually being able to see what's going on. I think that the perception of economic growth and prosperity is basically the thing that holds up Trump's public standing right. People don't actually like Trump that much. And you see this in the polling whenever he gets back into power. People really do not like his general thing. But what they accept in this trade off is that, O.K, Trump may be terrible in x, or z way, but he brings prosperity. He's like this totem for wealth. If it turns out that under Trump there is a significant economic slowdown, if there is a recession, even I think that is a moment where the bottom can really fall out from under his administration and his political standing. Now, what this means in practice, you just have to see what happens. But I do think that that's a real danger for him, that in the absence of any other compelling thing outside of his particular cult of personality, to keep him buoyed up with the rest of the public, he just doesn't have that much. Well, I'd suggest that's actually already happening. In other words, if you look at the polling data, as you said, Jamelle, he is unpopular himself. His job approval ratings are terrible, plus or - 40 percent depending upon which poll you look at. But people's perception of the state of the economy has not improved at all since Trump came back. His big beautiful bill act, whatever you want to call it, polls. Well, that is not what I want to call it. Yeah, I have many more names for it than that. The big ugly bill. There you go. Polls? quite negative, I think honestly, I would say on behalf of all of us who are journalists or opinion people or commentators on the situation, I think we've actually done a pretty good job of explaining to the American people what's really going on in the Trump administration and what's not going on, and I think that's part of why he panics and does something like the BLS, but when you see polling data on that, I think you're going to find that even that has backfired on him, and people are simply not going to believe that the data is manipulated or that he did the right thing in firing the head of the BLS. O.K, so the topic of political danger is a perfect segue into the second part of this, which is I have been following the Texas redistricting drama for weeks, since well before the new congressional maps were posted. And this is all about Trump panicking about what's going to happen in the midterms. So asking state lawmakers in Texas, which is led by Republicans, to redraw them a congressional map that finds the party five more seats before the midterms next year, which they've done, and they have put them out there and it has exploded. So this week's Hot new development is that Republicans have drafted the FBI to help them track down and arrest Texas Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in an effort to bog down this power grab. Democrats at the National level are spoiling for a fight. They're looking to push back. Blue states like California are threatening to redistrict. In response, Democrats I've been talking to including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, understand that they cannot take the so-called high road any longer, but are going to need to dig in and punch back hard. So I am I am very interested in where all this is going. Jamelle, I want you to look at this because this is obviously this is far from the first time Republicans have done this. This is ain't their first rodeo, as they say. But this has happened in your backyard in North Carolina. They went through it in 2021 when that legislature redrew the maps. And at the time you had suggestions for how Congress could address this issue. Do those still apply. Kind of. What have you been thinking watching all this. So my thought watching all of this, and I believe my suggestions way back when, was just that Congress should pass a bill ending partisan gerrymandering, which is well within Congress's power to do. And I still think that I still think that there should be a national ban on partisan gerrymandering. I think that the country should move away from single member districts, which necessitate gerrymandering, and move towards multi-member districts, which could open the door to more viable third parties in the American system. Having said that, I do think that one cannot bring a knife to a gunfight. One of the things that's worth saying is that gerrymandering is something of a gamble. So in Texas, if they're going to squeeze out five more Republican leaning congressional districts, this necessarily means spreading Democratic voters across other already Republican leaning districts, and these new districts may be only modestly or slightly Republican leaning, and prior districts from which you're moving. Populations may become a little less Republican leaning as well. And what you're counting on is a certain baseline level of partisan swing if you get above that. What can actually happen is that you lose all of those seats. A wave can wipe out a map in that way because you've lowered the barrier. And so part of what's funny to me about all of this is that it's clear that Donald Trump has a vision of what gerrymandering is, which is just that it's a generic way to get more seats and there's no cost to it. So of course, why wouldn't you do it. But the reality is that there is a cost to it. And the cost is that if you find yourself in a situation where there's a broad public swing against your party, you can lose all the seats that you may have gained with gerrymandering. The other thing I'll say here, just in terms of fighting fire with fire, whatever cliche you want to use is that there aren't that many high population Republican states. Like the typical Republican State is, population wise, a little smaller, a little more sparsely populated. And so, Yes, in Texas, you can maybe net a few more seats. In Ohio, you might be able to net a seat or two. California, Illinois, New York have actually a lot of room to really severely gerrymander their maps. And so if you do get into this game of tit for tat, you might end up in a situation where in fact, what you've done is made the map lean a little more Democratic than it otherwise would have been. And I would say that this is a response Democrats should have and they should say openly as well, that we will stand down. If you stand down, if you elect us into a majority, we will pass a bill outlawing partisan gerrymandering, which in addition to I think being smart politics is just the right thing to do. Well, that is one thing that has popped up. I mean, Jamelle's to Jamelle's point. Blue states have a lot of voters that could be redistricted in ways that disadvantage Republicans, but so many of these blue states have what now looks like unilaterally disarmed by having the redistricting process turned over to independent commissions. And what they're having to look at now is clawing back a process that was supposed to be going, pushing the country in a less partisan, less polarizing, more good government direction. And in some places, there's a little bit of hesitation about this. But, I mean, the people in Texas, if you talk to them, are like, we can't afford to just stand down at this point because they have taken this fight national and Republicans have no concerns about blowing through good government guardrails or anything like this. So, Jamelle, it sounds like you think this is the right response from the Democrats, even if it's potentially leading to a kind of slippery slope acceleration problem with it. That's right. I mean, I think one thing you have to ask yourself is like, how do you actually conceptualize the United States. Is it like, is it one country where all of our fates are linked, or can we all just silo ourselves in our individual States. If you believe the latter, then I can understand the hesitation about wanting to abandon nonpartisan redistricting commissions and that kind of thing, because it feels like a retreat from ideals of fairness and good government. But if you recognize that yeah, what happens in Texas has relevance to my life in Virginia. What happens in North Carolina has relevance to someone in Wisconsin. This has national implications, and the only way to deal with this is in a national manner. And if you recognize that fact. Then I think it leads you, inevitably to the conclusion that those people who are interested in actually fair elections have to do what it takes now to win the power to pass laws to ensure fair elections. But maintaining a position of we're going to fight for fairness in our state and we're not going to worry about what's happening elsewhere is ultimately a recipe for losing the war. You win a battle and you can lose the war. So what do you guys see as the best case scenario for this. First of all, I agree completely that Texas started this fight and New York and California and Illinois need to fight back. And the Democrats need to fight back. It would seem to me that on present course and speed, those legislatures legislators are eventually going to have to go back to Texas. They'll probably go ahead and get this done. And then I hope the big blue states will go ahead and do what they have to do. And then hopefully, as Jamelle said, if we Democrats and I'm a Democrat can get back in power and can pass some laws to bring this to a better place, then that is the most optimistic scenario I can see. To build on that, I think that the best case scenario does involve Democrats nationally recognizing that the only way past this moment in our politics, past Trumpism, you might say, is through serious political reform. And that's going to include, I think, some kind of restriction on partisan gerrymandering. So the best case scenario is that Democrats nationwide recognize the fight that they're actually in and build a consensus around the next time they hold power. We're going to begin this project of political reform. And again, I'll say this is something that's popular with voters. Voters voters don't like gerrymandering. They really do not like it. And so this is an opportunity to make a promise that you can deliver on, and also a promise that you can deliver on that will, in the long run, make our politics better. So I want to jump on that because I actually spent some time down in Austin, and I've talked to a lot of the Democrats who've been watching this thing down there for a long time. And they do have this situation where you need public pressure, you need public attention. It's not going to be the lawmakers alone that save you or some redistricting commission. This is one of those things that the Republicans are counting on people caring about. And let's be clear for the hearings that they were holding on this. The people were lining up and in the Capitol to testify and the other arenas where they were having these things, people were lining up online to testify they had overflow rooms. There was a lot of local pressure. But what Republicans count on in these situations is that people get really fired up, but then they don't really follow through, or they don't press hard enough. For Democratic lawmakers like Gavin Newsom or Kathy Hochul in New York to feel like it's a must do. So I just want to throw that out there because it does come down to voter priorities. And even if people don't like gerrymandering, unless they make that really clear and come up at these moments, nothing's going to get done about it. Well, I mean, you got to I think it's worth saying that public opinion is in a kind of dialectical relationship with actual politicians and that the baseline state of public opinion is they don't like gerrymandering, but it may not be the most salient thing. And so the important thing for politicians to do is to make it salient, to enhance its salience and to connect it to other kinds of issues that voters care about and to use that to create a cycle in which voters understand gerrymandering to be just one example of a kind of manipulation of the rules of unfairness that affects other parts of their lives. Like, that's the job of politics. And I think that if Democrats say to themselves, Oh, well, I don't know if we can mobilize voters to care about this, I think they're just not they're not trying hard enough. I think it's a tough issue for the American people to understand and grasp, I think. Sure there's a headline, Jerry, partisan gerrymandering. I suspect if you ask the average American, they probably think both parties do it. It's just part of the seamy side of politics. Eric Holder's been working on this issue since the end of the Obama administration, and obviously hasn't made a huge amount of progress. And I would have to say the Democrats don't come to this with absolutely clean hands, because back in 2022, they redistricted in the state of New York and the courts threw it out, claimed it was too partisan, and the court drew the boundaries for that election. And the Democrats ended up losing four seats as a result of it. So then they went back in and redistricted again in a way that was less overtly partisan, and it got past the courts and got some of those seats back. So I think the American public finds all of this really complicated, confusing, and has a hard time figuring out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. And so I certainly agree with both of you as to what we need to do, but I don't want to underestimate how tough a Hill. This is to climb. No, I think you're absolutely right. And I think the difference this time is that Trump has been so naked about it, and that's what's gotten a lot of attention. So like Jamelle, I think this could be, once they get through this immediate response and how to deal with Texas specifically, it would be nice if this could go back on the table as a nationwide issue of reform. But I am not super optimistic about it. So not to be the skunk at the Garden party as well. So we have an attack on the integrity of economic data and an attack on the integrity of the nation's electoral map. So the common thread here seems to be about who gets to define reality. Whether it's the healthy economy or the will of the voters. Trump obviously thinks it should be him, and only him and many other Republicans seem content at this point to play along. But at what point do you guys expect to see any pushback or at least any serious pushback. And what do you think it will look like from within his own party. I have to say, I've been around this stuff for a pretty long time. I started my career at the times in the Washington Bureau, and I have never seen a president have this kind of a hold on his party. I would have never predicted, based on what congressmen and senators said about the big ugly bill before it was passed, that he would get that through Congress. It was just I couldn't imagine it. You had people like Josh Hawley saying, I'm never going to vote for these Medicaid cuts right before he voted for the Medicaid cuts. And he has this incredible control. This conference I mentioned, which was under Chatham House rule. So I can't identify the people. It was bipartisan. There were a number of very senior former Republican legislators there, and they basically think Trump owns this party and will own it for the foreseeable future. And remember, he's raised money that he will never need because he's not going to I don't believe he's going to run, try to run for a third term. And we can debate that if you want. But he's holding he can hold this over the heads of all of these legislators and essentially tell them he's going to primary them. I would have never predicted that some of the nominees, some of the manifestly unqualified nominees that he put forward, Pete Hegseth, just to pick a name, would have gotten confirmed by the Senate. But they did. And so I think it's going to take I think it's going to take an awful lot before this breaks, in my opinion. I think it would take probably a disastrous midterm election, and I'm not sure I see that as likely. I think probably the Democrats will get the House back. But the Senate map is pretty tough for the Democrats, so I'm not sure that will flip. And so I think it would take a lot a really major downturn in the economy, a disastrous midterm election, something like that. If the Republicans are willing to sit back and allow him to fire the head of the BLS, allow him, ironically, to weaponize the Justice Department after attacking Biden for so-called weaponizing the Justice Department, then I'm not sure what short of one of those two things I mentioned, is going to cause the Republicans to push back in any kind of major way. Yeah, we are in an interesting moment. Usually what you look for is a bad midterm or some electoral punishment. I do think the Democrats have such a brand problem that you're right. It would be surprising if it was a midterm Wipeout, but even if it were a midterm Wipeout, I think we're in this weird zone where Republican lawmakers are not just politically afraid of upsetting Trump, but they are physically afraid for their safety. I have talked to plenty of congressional members during the Trump years who are afraid for their families. It has reached a very dark place, and I don't know how that plays out until he is an unfortunate memory in this office. Which kind of brings me to where I want to wrap this up, which is that he is a lame duck president, as you point out, unless he totally blows up the Constitution, he'll be gone in another few years. Will that be enough to halt this bad trajectory, the erosion of trust. Like, I guess, what happens that outlasts Trump. That's a really interesting question because part of me thinks that Trump's own personality, his own particular force as an individual, has such an important role to play in all of this that if and when he goes. If he just leaves office or whatever happens to him. I think his absence from the scene will. Will it won't make. It won't fix anything, but it will transform. It will change things, I think, in a measurable way. But then he's been on even when this happens, he will have been on the scene for well over a decade. And that does shape and change American politics. There will be basically a generation of Republican politicians politician from Trump is like is their lodestar. Republican voters certainly for Trump is their lodestar. And if you buy that there's such a thing as a moral ecology to a society, then Trump has influenced the moral ecology of American politics in such a way as to make the kind of open and explicit corruption and casual and open bigotry, all these things to make them common again in American political life. And so I love this view that there will be tangible policy things from the Trump era that may not last beyond Trump, that may not last beyond the personnel associated with them. But there'll be maybe like an ethos that cultural changes, cultural changes, that does survive beyond him. To sound a little like the conservatives of my youth culture matters and character matters, and these things do shape a society. Oh, that's so passé now, come on. I know. I mean, I have many thoughts and feelings about the way these things are these days. But I do think that might be the thing that endures out of all of this. But it's hard to say. It is hard to say, and it's really going to be interesting. It'd be more interesting if the consequences and the stakes weren't so great. But I started my career, as I said at the times Washington Bureau in June of 1974, and of course, in August of 1974, Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford got on television and said, we are a nation of laws and not of men. And my point is that the pendulum swung back and we went through a period of what I'll call good government, where a lot of where norms were reestablished and where we went on for a good while before we got to this place. So I don't really know what's going to happen. I like to think I'm an optimist. It's possible that whatever's left of the moderate wing of the Republican Party, and I will absolutely grant you that he's driven most of them out of power and out of office, will reassert itself. And so I think it's a straw in the wind that could blow either way, depending upon what happens in the next 3 and 1/2 years. But I I've not given up hope. I really do think our country's been through a lot of bad stuff over the last 250 years. Civil war, certainly, I think we've endured. And so I'd like to be optimistic and think we're going to find our way through this. O.K well if you're going to be optimistic, I'm going to be optimistic right there with you. We're going to land this plane. Guys, Thank you so much for coming in to talk through all of this. Hope you come back again very soon. Thank you. Thank you so much. President Trump is destroying trust in public institutions, and there's a reason for that, the Opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie tells the Opinion national politics writer Michelle Cottle and the contributing Opinion writer Steven Rattner on the episode of 'The Opinions.' Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Michelle Cottle: The White House wrecking ball just keeps on swinging this summer as President Trump pursues his passion for undermining key American institutions. Just the past couple of weeks, we've seen the White House fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency responsible for providing unbiased info on the labor market, because the president was displeased with a jobs report. Meanwhile, and this is my personal obsession, Republican state lawmakers in Texas, at Trump's command, redrew the state's congressional map to give the G.O.P. five more House seats. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
7 states most likely to follow Texas in redistricting
A redistricting arms race is heating up around the country as other states look to follow Texas's lead in redrawing their congressional lines ahead of the 2026 midterms. Multiple Democratic and Republican governors have expressed interest in their states conducting their own redistricting process to add as many seats as they can for their parties and increase the chances that their party can win control of the House next year. But whether they will be able to depends on the state and its own unique rules. Here are the seven states most likely to follow Texas in redistricting: Ohio Ohio is the only state in the country, even including Texas, already guaranteed to redraw its district lines as it's in a bit of a different situation than the others. State lawmakers are required to approve a new map ahead of the midterms because the current map, in place since 2022, was only approved by a simple majority along party lines rather than a bipartisan supermajority. But with Republicans firmly in control of both houses of the state legislature, the party still seems likely to pick up a few seats with the next map. The two Democratic lawmakers most likely to potentially lose their seats in the process are Reps. Marcy Kaptur and Emilia Sykes in the 9th and 13th Congressional districts. So while Republicans already occupy 10 of the 15 House seats that Ohio has, they could still pick up a few more. California California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has been arguably the most visible Democrat in responding to Republicans' efforts to use redistricting, and the Golden State seems to be the party's best chance to pick up the most seats if Texas approves a new map. The process for California to redraw its lines in time for the 2026 midterms is a bit complicated — but possible. The state has an independent redistricting commission that determines its district lines, but Newsom confirmed on Friday the state would move forward with a special election in November that would allow them to create a new map in place for the rest of the decade. The independent commission would remain intact for the reapportionment after the 2030 census, and a new map would only be used if Texas or another state redraws its lines first. But presuming Texas does redistrict, Newsom and state Democrats appear committed to advancing a plan that could gain their party up to five seats. Florida The Sunshine State is the other significant source of possible gains for the GOP through redistricting, and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has been increasingly hinting at the state GOP following Texas's footsteps to add more Republican seats. Florida state House Speaker Daniel Perez (R) announced on Thursday that he would form a redistricting committee to explore possible maps and legal questions associated with how the lines are drawn. But he didn't specify the timeline for redistricting, saying the committee's members would be announced next month. But a few Democrats could be targeted if the process advances, including Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jared Moskowitz and Darren Soto. And Republicans are feeling particularly emboldened after the state Supreme Court upheld the current map against claims of racial gerrymandering. Indiana Along with the big-ticket states that could give the GOP multiple extra seats, the Trump administration is also putting pressure on smaller states that could net only one seat. Vice President Vance visited Indianapolis on Thursday for a meeting with Indiana Gov. Mike Braun (R) to discuss mid-decade redistricting. Braun didn't commit to redistricting following the meeting, but he left the door open. Meanwhile, Trump's allies were reportedly exploring options in Indiana late last month. Braun would need to call a special session of the legislature and Republicans would have to move quickly, but the party has a supermajority. If approved, a new map would most likely target Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.) in the northwestern part of the state. Missouri Missouri is another state where Republicans theoretically could pick off another Democratic-held seat if the party members want to push forward. The administration has also put pressure on the GOP in the state, with Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) as the likely target, but the reaction from state lawmakers has been mixed. State House Speaker Pro Tempore Chad Perkins initially expressed doubt about redistricting early, but he showed more openness to it after receiving a call from the White House. But state Senate President Pro Tempore Cindy O'Laughlin told The Missouri Independent that she also wasn't too eager about the plan, and Perkins expressed concern about possible backlash to Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) calling a special session. New York New York Democrats seem just as determined as their California counterparts to update their district lines, but their chances of being able to update them before next year's elections seem slim. The Empire State also uses an independent commission to draw its lines, with approval from the state legislature. State lawmakers can propose a constitutional amendment to voters to change the system, but any amendment needs to pass in two consecutive sessions of the legislature before being proposed to voters. This would mean that no change could go into effect until ahead of the 2028 elections at the earliest. But Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) has pledged to look at all available options, acknowledging the time constraints and wanting a faster timeline. She said the independent commission should be disbanded or changed, and she would also look at litigation options. New Jersey The Garden State would be an ideal spot for Democrats to try to pick up a seat or two, but barriers put in place will likely make this not possible before the midterms. New Jersey also has an independent commission that lawmakers would need to go around to enact a new map, but its state constitution also specifically prohibits mid-decade redistricting. Both of these could be overcome with a constitutional amendment, and Democrats have comfortable control of both houses of the state legislature, but likely not enough time remains to change it in advance. The public needs a three-month notice period before voting on an amendment, which means this past Monday was the deadline for getting it passed ahead of Election Day on Nov. 4.
