
Democrats draw up plans to retaliate if Republicans gerrymander Texas — but they face legal hurdles
Retaliation threats have come from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who lead states where Democrats control large legislative majorities. Two can play at this game, they say, vowing to similarly eliminate GOP-held seats in their states.
But that's easier said than done.
Democrats have legal hurdles to clear in California and New York, which have restricted partisan gerrymandering, which liberal advocates pushed in previous years in the name of good government. Texas has no such limits, so GOP Gov. Greg Abbott has called a special session to draw a new map.
California eyes a 'triggered' map for 2026
California has an independent redistricting commission — a bipartisan panel tasked with drawing up fair maps for the Legislature to approve — to avoid partisan influence. Newsom is seeking to get around that on a temporary and targeted basis — but only if Texas enacts its GOP-favored map, which is aimed at giving Republicans up to five more seats in the U.S. House.
Newsom hopes to work with the Democratic-dominated Legislature starting this month to set up a special election for a statewide ballot measure on Nov. 4. It would offer a newly drawn map if Texas moves forward, a source close to Newsom told NBC News.
The ballot measure would do two things: First, it would affirm support for California's independent commission and call for fair redistricting nationwide. Second, it would include a trigger that says a pre-drawn new House map expected to boost Democrats would take effect if Texas implemented a new map.
'What we will say is for the '26, '28 and 2030 elections, these congressional maps on the ballot that voters are approving will be in place. ... The maps themselves will most likely be on the ballot,' said the source close to Newsom, who wasn't authorized to discuss the plan publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. 'After the 2030 election, the redistricting commission does its job again, and we'll redraw starting in 2032.'
Newsom said that the maps are 'being processed' and that they will be 'provided in a transparent way to the public,' adding that under the plan, California voters would make the 'ultimate determination.'
'We're not going to roll over. And we're going to fight fire with fire,' Newsom said. 'We also will punch above our weight in terms of the impact of what we're doing. And I think that should be absorbed by those in the Texas delegation. Whatever they are doing will be neutered here in the state of California.'
Paul Mitchell, a California-based redistricting consultant who has advised Democrats, said any new House map would be constrained by the Voting Rights Act, as well as the governor's office and the Legislature, which would need to greenlight it.
'It's like having an emergency 'break glass' rather than an emergency 'burn down the house' measure,' Mitchell said, adding that voters support the independent commission and believe it should be replicated nationwide, in an ideal world.
'They're angry about what Texas is doing. They want to fight back,' he said. 'Voters can understand our long-term goal is this path of better democracy. If we do something, it's only because Texas did it. If Texas steps down today, then all this hubbub of redistricting in California goes away.'
How many Republican-held House seats could Democrats flip by drawing a new and friendlier map in California?
'The threshold is three, four or five seats,' Mitchell said, adding that a tangential goal would be to fortify Democrats in existing competitive seats and not do a 'dummy-mander' that might expose other Democratic lawmakers to problems.
New York may have to wait until 2028
In New York, changing the redistricting process must move forward as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment — a lengthy and arduous exercise that probably wouldn't lead to new congressional maps until the 2028 election cycle, even if Texas acts before the upcoming midterms.
'I wish I could just call a special election and change it. I'd do it in a heartbeat,' Hochul said recently on MSNBC's "All In with Chris Hayes." 'But we have a constitutional amendment process that's required first. I'm willing to do that. I'm working hard with our legislative leaders to pass legislation immediately — as soon as they return in January — pass it in this current session of the Legislature, go to the next one, which is required, so it won't be until 2027 we can get it on the ballot. But what would that mean — is that in 2028, we could have different lines.'
That's because the state's redistricting has been controlled for more than a decade by its own independent redistricting commission. New York voters passed a constitutional amendment changing the redistricting process back in 2014 to create the commission; previously, the Legislature controlled the entire process for legislative and congressional maps.
The new proposed amendment would return the duties of redrawing congressional districts to the Legislature — but only if another state engaged in mid-decade redistricting first. Because it's a proposed constitutional amendment, it would have to pass the Legislature in Albany in two consecutive sessions — this year and again in 2026 — and then still be approved by voters in a ballot measure in the subsequent year.
That means that whatever new maps that would be created wouldn't be in effect until the 2028 elections at the earliest.
'Otherwise, we have to wait until 2032,' Hochul said, referring to the decennial census process. 'And heaven help our country to find out what'll happen with that length of time.'
Democratic legislators in Albany acknowledged that the payoff would be delayed, but they said advancing the measure is still crucial, as long as Texas Republicans continue to advance their own.
'It's still worth it,' state Sen. Pat Fahy, a Democrat, told NBC News on the sidelines of the National Conference of State Legislatures annual meeting in Boston on Tuesday.
Fahy said it was 'really unfortunate' that New York Democrats felt forced to change years of precedent. 'But I'm willing to do it, because so much is at stake,' she said. 'This is about Congress, and it is about control, and it's unfortunate, but we have to do what we have to do.'
Responding to questions about the obstacles and delays, state Senate Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris, who introduced the bill in his chamber, said in an email, 'What Texas is attempting is a perversion of our democracy and cannot be allowed to stand without a response.'
'This battle will not be over in 2026 and it behooves us to ensure New York is in the game if other states will be enacting off-cycle redistricting,' he said.
Hashtags

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


Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Trump Delivers Democrats' Dream Corporate Tax
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. Billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, a vocal critic of Donald Trump, startled political observers this week by urging Democrats to thank the president for doing what they "have NEVER been able to do": Impose a revenue skim on two of America's most profitable tech companies. "Hey @AOC, @BernieSanders, @SenSchumer, @SenWarren — every Dem should be thanking @potus for doing what the Dems have dreamed of doing, but have NEVER been able to do," Cuban posted on X on Aug. 11. "He is going to generate corporate tax revenue that you guys only wish you could pass." Hey @AOC , @BernieSanders , @SenSchumer , @SenWarren , every Dem should be thanking @potus for doing what the Dems have dreamed of doing, but have NEVER been able to do, creating a sales tax on 2 of the biggest semi companies in the country ! This opens the door for Sales Tax… — Mark Cuban (@mcuban) August 11, 2025 Cuban was referring to a new Trump administration deal requiring the leading chipmakers Nvidia and AMD to pay the U.S. government 15 percent of revenue from sales of certain artificial intelligence chips to China — a condition for receiving export licenses. While the White House has avoided calling it a tax, Cuban labeled it a "billionaire's sales tax" and "the ULTIMATE wealth tax," framing it as the kind of corporate levy progressives have long advocated for but failed to deliver. An Unprecedented Chip 'Commission' The deal marks a sharp departure from standard export-control practices. Traditionally, companies apply for export licenses without paying a percentage of their sales to the government. But under this arrangement, the Commerce Department will grant licenses for Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI309 chips — lower-performance versions of their top AI semiconductors tailored to meet prior U.S. security restrictions — but under the unusual condition that the companies hand over 15 percent of revenues generated from those sales. Analysts estimate the policy could generate up to $3 billion annually for the Treasury. That's pocket change in the context of a $7 trillion federal budget, but significant in terms of precedent. "He took 15% of equity from a company," Cuban wrote on X, adding, "That is the ULTIMATE wealth tax... a progressive dream!" Mark Cuban (left) praised Donald Trump's (center) deal with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang (right) requiring the company to share 15% of certain China chip sales with the U.S. government — calling it a 'progressive dream'... Mark Cuban (left) praised Donald Trump's (center) deal with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang (right) requiring the company to share 15% of certain China chip sales with the U.S. government — calling it a 'progressive dream' tax, even as critics raise legal and security concerns. More Getty Images Cuban — who campaigned for Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 — argued that Democrats have been too "dogmatic" in pushing traditional tax hikes instead of exploring unconventional leverage points. "They are so intent on income and wealth taxes on 'oligarchs,' they have no concept of leverage in business," he said. "Trump does." Chris Miller, foreign policy scholar and author of Chip War: The Fight for the World's Most Critical Technology, told Newsweek the deal also signals "a very significant shift in policy." He noted that the Trump administration had previously emphasized tightening restrictions on China but now "appears to have shifted toward prioritizing U.S. firms' sales and deprioritizing the national security concerns that had dominated" earlier thinking. Critics See Danger, Supporters See Pragmatism For decades, Democrats have pushed to make big corporations "pay their fair share" through higher corporate tax rates, windfall profit taxes and even wealth taxes on billionaires. Yet those proposals rarely make it through Congress, even when it's controlled by Democrats. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act imposed a 15 percent minimum tax on large corporations' book income, but more ambitious corporate tax hikes have failed. "POTUS is more progressive when it comes to taxation than anyone in the progressive wing of the Dems has ever been. The Dems should be celebrating just how progressive it is," Cuban wrote on X. "The irony." US Representative from Illinois Raja Krishnamoorthi speaks on the fourth and last day of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) at the United Center in Chicago, Illinois, on August 22, 2024. US Representative from Illinois Raja Krishnamoorthi speaks on the fourth and last day of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) at the United Center in Chicago, Illinois, on August 22, 2024. Getty Images While Cuban celebrated the chip scheme as clever, U.S. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi saw it as a dangerous misstep. The top Democrat on the House China Select Committee told Newsweek the administration was taking "one of our most important national security tools" — export controls — and twisting them into "a pay-to-play scheme with no clear legal authority, congressional oversight, or transparency." "You cannot treat something as both a national security threat and a revenue opportunity without signaling to Beijing that our principles and national security are for sale," he said. If certain chips are too risky to sell, "those exports should be prohibited outright, not monetized." Orde Kittrie, a law professor at Arizona State University and former State Department attorney, agreed the arrangement is "inconsistent" with constitutional provisions reserving taxing power to Congress and prohibiting export duties. In an interview with Newsweek, he also questioned whether the funds could become "a kind of presidential slush fund" outside normal appropriation rules. The risk of undermining export policy is also a concern for Derek Scissors, a China expert at the center-right think tank American Enterprise Institute. He told Newsweek the deal "looks like a pathway for export controls to be continually violated" by allowing companies to buy exemptions whenever it is profitable. "They're calling it a fee," Scissors added. "Plain language says 15 percent of sales revenue is a tax." The office building of Nvidia Corporation in Neihu Technology Park, Taipei, Taiwan, July 25, 2022. The office building of Nvidia Corporation in Neihu Technology Park, Taipei, Taiwan, July 25, 2022. BING-From a policy standpoint, Bill Reinsch, a former Commerce Department official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told Newsweek the precedent is "even more corrosive" because "the message it sends is that security is negotiable." "Licensing decisions should be based on a national security assessment of the items in question... not a payment," he said. But not everyone in the financial world sees danger. Eric Schiffer, investor and chairman of The Patriarch Organization, told Newsweek he agrees with Cuban's take that the move is "a form of tax that you'd think Democrats would like." "Mark is correct," Schiffer said. "But I don't see the Trump administration applying it aggressively or broadly. It will be tactical and at the president's discretion." He added that for Nvidia and AMD, it's "a big win" because it reopens a market they had lost, and "paying a small fee is worth it for them." Legal and Political Uncertainty Ahead Whether this move remains an isolated maneuver or signals a new model for extracting corporate revenue could hinge on how the courts — or Congress — respond. Critics like Kittrie note that Article I of the Constitution prohibits export taxes and reserves taxing authority for Congress, which could make the 15 percent revenue skim vulnerable to legal challenge. "Article 1 Section 9 prohibits the imposition of export taxes or duties," he said. "The 15 percent arrangement would appear to be exactly that, and thus prohibited to both Congress and the executive branch." On Capitol Hill, Krishnamoorthi has signaled the committee's intent to scrutinize the deal, warning it risks undermining America's credibility in enforcing export controls. If challenges emerge, they could also pull in trade law disputes at the World Trade Organization, where U.S. trading partners may view the measure as discriminatory or beyond the bounds of standard licensing fees. In this photo illustration a smartphone screen displays the logo for the app for Chinese AI company DeepSeek in front of the Nvidia website on January 27, 2025 in Bath, England. In this photo illustration a smartphone screen displays the logo for the app for Chinese AI company DeepSeek in front of the Nvidia website on January 27, 2025 in Bath, Chaisse, a trade law professor at City University of Hong Kong, told Newsweek such a case could attract multiple countries to join a WTO challenge, framing it as a dangerous precedent for tying export licenses to revenue transfers. He said the 15 percent requirement "far exceeds the administrative cost" of licensing and could be viewed as a disguised trade restriction. And while Beijing has urged Chinese companies to avoid using those processors—particularly for government-related purposes—for now, Nvidia and AMD are paying, China is buying, and Cuban is applauding a president he often criticizes. As the billionaire put it on X: "Sometimes you have to find a different path to get the results you want. You can't be dogmatic when you want to help people."


CBS News
a few seconds ago
- CBS News
Trump says he expects Congress to extend federal takeover of D.C. police beyond 30-day limit
Washington — President Trump said Wednesday that the White House will seek "long-term extensions" from Congress to maintain control of D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department, part of the president's push to crack down on crime in the nation's capital. "I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously," Mr. Trump said. Mr. Trump announced the deployment of members of the National Guard to D.C. on Monday and said the federal government would also take control of the D.C. police. In an executive order Monday, the president directed the D.C. mayor to provide the services of the Metropolitan Police Department for federal use "for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act." The 1973 law allows the president to require the D.C. mayor to provide "such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate" for a period of 48 hours, a deadline that can be extended by up to 30 days by notifying Congress, which the president has done. Any extension beyond 30 days requires a joint resolution passed by the House and Senate. Speaking at the Kennedy Center, Mr. Trump said he expects Congress to extend the federal takeover, saying, "We think the Republicans will do it almost unanimously." "We're going to need a crime bill that we're going to be putting in and it's going to pertain initially to D.C.," Mr. Trump said. "We're going to be asking for extensions on that, long-term extensions, because you can't have 30 days." Although Republicans have majorities in both the House and Senate, the extension would require the support of at least seven Democrats to advance, since most legislation functions under a 60-vote threshold in the upper chamber, where Republicans control 53 seats. The president said he could extend the takeover without Congress' help "if it's a national emergency," but he said, "I don't want to call a national emergency." "If I have to, I will," Mr. Trump added. "But I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously." According to local police data, violent crime in D.C. has been declining for the last year and a half after spiking in 2023. Robberies have dropped by 28% this year and overall violent crime is down 26%, as of Aug. 11. The Justice Department said violent crime in the capital city hit its lowest level in more than 30 years last year.

Epoch Times
a minute ago
- Epoch Times
Russian Forces Make Sudden Thrust in Donetsk, Raising Alarm Bells in Kyiv
Russian forces in recent days have pushed several miles into Ukrainian-held territory, putting pressure on Kyiv days before a planned summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to Ukrainian sources, Russian forces are now closing in on the town of Dobropillia in the eastern Donetsk region.