Despite risks, Texas Republicans launch Trump-backed effort to redraw congressional lines
Trump has told reporters he expects the effort to yield as many as five additional House Republicans. Republicans hold a narrow 220-212 majority in the House, with three Democratic-held seats vacant after members' deaths.
But redistricting experts said the plan could backfire if Republicans try to squeeze too many seats out of what is already considered a significantly skewed map.
"Redrawing the Texas map is a dangerous proposition for House Republicans and their incumbents," Suzan DelBene, a Democratic congresswoman from Washington State and chair of the party's congressional campaign arm, told reporters. "It's basic math. For them to try to break up Democratic-held districts, they will have to weaken Republican districts, who already are facing political headwinds."
Under the current lines, Republicans control 25 seats, nearly two-thirds of the districts in a state that went for Trump last year by a 56% to 42% margin.
States are required to redistrict every 10 years based on the U.S. Census but the Texas map was passed just four years ago by the Republican-dominated legislature. While mid-cycle redistricting occasionally takes place, it is usually prompted by a change in power at the legislature.
"This is totally unprecedented for a party to redraw its own map," said Michael Li, a redistricting expert at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. "I can't think of another situation where the party got what it wanted, did very well and then decided to redraw its own map."
Texas Democrats expressed disapproval on the state Senate floor on Monday and criticized Republicans for pursuing redistricting during a special legislative session that will also address funding for flood prevention in the wake of the deadly July 4 flash flooding that killed more than 130. But they have little recourse in a legislature dominated by Republicans.
"I think this is a tremendous waste of time," Senator Roland Gutierrez, a Democrat, said.
Asked about Democratic criticisms, a spokesman for Governor Greg Abbott previously said the governor was "dedicated to delivering results on issues important to Texans" during the session, including flood relief and tax cuts.
Gerrymandering, the process of manipulating district boundaries to benefit one party, typically includes both "packing" and "cracking." Packing involves cramming as many opposition voters into a district as possible, making it easier to win the surrounding districts; cracking divides opposition voters into multiple districts, diluting their electoral power.
When lawmakers push too far, however, they run the risk of creating a so-called "dummymander," in which the margins are thin enough that the other party ends up winning districts in a voting shift.
Trump's Republicans already face vulnerabilities ahead of the 2026 elections. Only 41% of Americans approve of the job he is doing, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, and the president's party historically underperforms during midterm elections.
Democrats privately concede that Republicans could fairly easily draw a new map to oust two vulnerable Democrats, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, whose heavily Latino south Texas districts swung toward Trump in 2024. But gaining five seats is a tougher task.
"This has dummymander written all over it," said New York University's Li. "When you gerrymander, you're making a bet that you know what the future of the state will look like. In some states, that's a safe bet; in Texas, it's very much not."
Texas is one of the fastest growing states in the nation, adding more than 1,500 people a day from 2023 to 2024, according to the state demographer.
Texas lawmakers need only look back a few years to see how a seemingly safe gerrymander can shift. In 2018, during Trump's first term, Democrats flipped two seats and came close to winning a handful of other previously solid Republican seats, as suburban voters swung away from Trump.
Following the 2020 census, Texas Republicans responded by drawing a map designed to protect their incumbents. Only three of the state's 38 districts are seen as competitive under the current lines.
In calling for the special session, Abbott cited a letter from Trump's Justice Department that alleged four majority-minority districts – all held by Democrats – were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.
Democrats and civil rights groups have warned that breaking up majority-minority districts will dilute the voting power for people of color. The existing map is already the subject of several lawsuits claiming that it intentionally discriminated against minority voters.
Some Democrats have also suggested fighting fire with fire by redistricting in states they control. California Governor Gavin Newsom has floated the idea of sidestepping the state's redistricting commission to draw a new, more Democrat-friendly map.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Asian shares are mixed after Wall Street sets more records for US stocks
Stock markets in Asia were mixed on Monday after U.S. stocks rose to more records as they closed out another winning week. U.S. futures and oil prices were higher ahead of trade talks in Stockholm between U.S. and Chinese officials. European futures rose after the European Union forged a deal with the Trump administration calling for 15% tariffs on most exports to the U.S. The agreement announced after President Donald Trump and European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen met briefly at Trump's Turnberry golf course in Scotland staves off far higher import duties on both sides that might have sent shock waves through economies around the globe. Tokyo's Nikkei 225 index lost 1% to 41,056.81 after doubts surfaced over what exactly the trade truce between Japan and U.S. President Donald Trump, especially the $550 billion pledge of investment in the U.S. by Japan, will entail. Terms of the deal are still being negotiated and nothing has been formalized in writing, said an official, who insisted on anonymity to detail the terms of the talks. The official suggested the goal was for a $550 billion fund to make investments at Trump's direction. Hong Kong's Hang Seng index gained 0.4% to 25,490.45 while the Shanghai Composite index lost 0.2% to 3,587.25. Taiwan's Taiex rose 0.3%. CK Hutchison, a Hong Kong conglomerate that's selling ports at the Panama Canal, said it may seek a Chinese investor to join a consortium of buyers in a move that might please Beijing but could also bring more U.S. scrutiny to a geopolitically fraught deal. CK Hutchison's shares fell 0.6% on Monday in Hong Kong. Elsewhere in Asia, South Korea's Kospi was little changed at 3,195.49, while Australia's S&P/ASX 200 rose 0.3% to 8,688.40. India's Sensex slipped 0.1%. Markets in Thailand were closed for a holiday. On Friday, the S&P 500 rose 0.4% to 6,388.64, setting an all-time for the fifth time in a week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 0.5% to 44,901.92, while the Nasdaq composite added 0.2%, closing at 21,108.32 to top its own record. Deckers, the company behind Ugg boots and Hoka shoes, jumped 11.3% after reporting stronger profit and revenue for the spring than analysts expected. Its growth was particularly strong outside the United States, where revenue soared nearly 50%. But Intell fell 8.5% after reporting a loss for the latest quarter, when analysts were looking for a profit. The struggling chipmaker also said it would cut thousands of jobs and eliminate other expenses as it tries to turn around its fortunes. Intel, which helped launch Silicon Valley as the U.S. technology hub, has fallen behind rivals like Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices while demand for artificial intelligence chips soars. Companies are under pressure to deliver solid growth in profits to justify big gains for their stock prices, which have rallied to record after record in recent weeks. Wall Street has zoomed higher on hopes that President Donald Trump will reach trade deals with other countries that will lower his stiff proposed tariffs, along with the risk that they could cause a recession and drive up inflation. Trump has recently announced deals with Japan and the Philippines, and the next big deadline is looming on Friday, Aug. 1. Apart from trade talks, this week will also feature a meeting by the Federal Reserve on interest rates. Trump again on Thursday lobbied the Fed to cut rates, which he has implied could save the U.S. government money on its debt repayments. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has said he is waiting for more data about how Trump's tariffs affect the economy and inflation before making a move. The widespread expectation on Wall Street is that the Fed will wait until September to resume cutting interest rates. In other dealings early Monday, U.S. benchmark crude oil gained 24 cents to $65.40 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, also added 24 cents to $67.90 per barrel. The dollar rose to 147.72 Japanese yen from 147.71 yen. The euro slipped to $1.1755 from $1.1758.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Sign of a bright energy future – but for whom?
I saw John Swinney visiting Eyemouth last week and singing the praises of the Neart na Gaoithe wind farm in the Firth of Forth. For sure, the First Minister was right, it is a wonder of engineering and a sign of a bright energy future. But for whom? Almost all the benefits are passing Scotland by, just as they did in the first great energy bounty, when oil was discovered in the North Sea. Oil's still there and still being drilled for, though not as much as it should be, and it's only weeks since the Grangemouth oil refinery closed. Of course, there's a nice shiny new office block on Eyemouth pier for NnG, as it is referred to. The jobs there are few but welcome all the same. But where's the real work going – and, more importantly, who owns and profits? READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' NnG might lie between Lothians and Fife but ownership lies abroad and a clue's in the name. Neart na Gaoithe is Gaelic but the Irish version, the reason being that the wind farm is owned not just by EDF, the state energy company of France but also ESB, the Republic of Ireland's state electricity company. The Irish consul general told me it is the single biggest investment ESB has ever made outwith the island of Ireland. All this means that profits from the wonder Swinney saw are going to Paris and Dublin and not to Edinburgh. But it's far worse than that: not one turbine for it is being manufactured in Scotland, despite Methil being visible from it, never mind other ports and yards in Scotland being available which are crying out for work. Even if the excuse is a lack of capacity here in turbine manufacturing – which itself is lamentable and indicative of a shameful lack of an industrial strategy – what about other works such as subsea cabling, the laying of pipeline and the assembly of the units, along with the ship contracts? As with ownership, they've gone abroad, with firms from Italy, Belgium and far beyond winning out and Scotland languishing without. Even the jobs that are coming to Scotland are limited. Beyond the smaller vessels at Eyemouth, there was hope for work for maritime crews providing for the major construction and cabling work from Montrose. So thought a former constituent of mine who left the deep-sea tankers for a job closer to home. Within a few days he and the rest of the UK crew had been laid off and replaced by South Asian labour. When you're working beyond territorial waters – and that's where NnG lies – UK employment law doesn't apply. What a rip-off. And the NnG tragedy won't be alone as it's not the only Scottish offshore wind farm owned by foreign state companies; China, Norway, Sweden and the UAE also have sites. There's a double whammy here, and not just in the work and contracts being frittered away. When the ScotWind auction took place – under the auspices and control of the Scottish not UK Government – offshore sites were sold off for a song. The £800 million raised was trumpeted as a triumph by the then first minister Nicola Sturgeon. Yet within a matter of weeks that was shown to be a paltry sum. Less than 25% of what had been auctioned off in Scotland was sold in the US by New York State for a site off Long Island and for somewhere in the region of $4.3 billion. And believe me, the European energy market, of which Scotland is a critical part, is larger than the US's. But we were told all's well as we'd be getting the supply jobs. Well, where are they? A few jobs at Eyemouth and a few ribs going out of that port aren't what we were led to believe we'd get, and are probably less that Ireland will have from just NnG alone. What a waste and what a letdown. The Scottish tragedy is being repeated but when it was oil and gas we had no Parliament. Now we have Holyrood and, shamefully, it is being complicit as well as supine. Yes, energy is largely reserved but the ScotWind sell-off was wholly down to [[Holyrood]]. This is our great opportunity, as the First Minister said, but it has to actually happen, not just be empty rhetoric. While Swinney was at Eyemouth harbour, I was at the funeral of an independence stalwart and was reminded by the eulogy of his role in the anti-poll tax campaign. Back then, he and his compadre, who sat next to me in the chapel, painted 'Pay No Poll Tax' on the bridges along the M8. No easy task but much appreciated by many. Things should be better and easier for us now, but as well as failures there's been a dampening of the spirit. Radicalism, let alone political actions, have been decried, as shown over the genocide in Palestine. We need some competency in our Government, but we also require some fire back in our movement.
