Update 888 – Mid-Decade Redistricting:
Fight Fire with Fire or Burn Down the House?
The current U.S. House redistricting fight, sparked in Texas, seems to have pulled Democrats together nationally for the first time since the election. With AOC and Bernie Sanders offering one economic policy approach, Freshman Senator Elissa Slotkin presenting another, and with Democratic Congressional leaders providing inconsistent leadership, the conflict among Democrats between “principles and decency” and fighting fire with fire remains strong. Yet, the battle is now met with California Governor Newsom’s plan to fight back, which has support now from former President Obama and others.
Yet, even Republicans, with their trifecta, seem to be struggling with unity. It took a Hail Mary to get Republicans on board for OBBB. Speaker Johnson has had to wrangle far-right members like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has bucked Trump and Leadership on multiple occasions. Now Republicans are divided on Trump’s gerrymander strategy. Some see this strategy as necessary to keep the Trifecta in a midterm cycle that historically is beneficial to the minority party. Enough to offset any GOP redistricting gains? See below.
Good weekends, all…
Best,
Dana
Republicans have set off a national redistricting fight after acceding to President Trump’s push for redrawing the Texas Congressional map in their favor ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. It is a matter of when, not if, these new maps are approved. As of late Thursday, State Representative and Texas House Democratic Leader Gene Wu of Houston announced the group’s intention to return and their conditions. Texas Democrats will return only after this special session has concluded and California has released its proposed maps, which are anticipated on Monday. While the timeline for establishing the Texas maps is coming into focus, there is sure to be a lengthy legal battle ahead that could make its way to the Supreme Court, altering the constitutionality of gerrymandering for the worse.
New maps are expected to alter competitive districts, with some states looking to move safe seats to lean seats and others looking to move lean seats to safe seats. Regardless of the outcome, one thing is clear: with political gerrymandering so immensely unpopular, fighting fire with fire may further add to political disillusionment across the aisle, but also be Democrats’ only shot at having a fighting chance for the remainder of Trump’s term.
State of Play in Texas
Today, the House is expected to adjourn after another attempt to establish a quorum before Governor Abbott declares the second special session. In the proclamation calling for the Special Session to begin July 21, Texas Governor Greg Abbott cited the “constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.” In reference to the 2021 filing by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against the State of Texas and the Secretary of State, the DOJ claimed that Texas violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against Black and Latino voters when the map diluted the strength of those minority groups. This case was dismissed per request by the Justice Department this year.
Under the current Texas map, Democrats hold 12 of the state’s 38 seats. Democrat Representative Sylvester Turner, the 13th Democrat, passed away on March 5. Governor Abbott announced a special election on November 4 to fill that vacant seat. On Tuesday, the Texas Senate passed the new maps on a 19-2 vote, with nine Democrats leaving the floor just prior to the vote, and the remaining two voting no. The new maps would have resulted in Trump winning three more districts in 2024.
62 House Democrats responded by fleeing the state, many heading to Illinois and New York. The remaining three Democrats elected to stay for a potential vote on flood support. Only 12 of the 62 House Democrats would need to return to restore the quorum. The session is set to end on August 19th, and the 62 Democrats have vowed to stay away through that day.
The most significant quorum breaks in recent Texas history are 1979, 2003, and 2021. Democrats are right to flag this moment: this fight in Texas is not unique to Texas. Republicans are moving at varying speeds in a variety of states.
Consequences of Breaking Quorum
Republicans in Texas are hell bent on punishing Democrats for using the only tool in their toolkit. Tactics include:
- $500/day fine – Lawmakers who leave the state are being fined $500 per day. Campaign funds cannot be used. Outside groups can send funds. Legislators are likely to challenge these fines in court.
- Threat of seats declared vacant – Though this would require an election to fill them again, and vacated seats would likely be reclaimed by the same Democrats
- Arrest warrants – The Texas House has issued arrest warrants for the members who fled, and Abbott mobilized the Texas Department of Public Safety. However, they have no jurisdiction outside of the state.
- Forgoing Wages – With Texas paying legislators just $7200/year, many Democrats are forgoing their own pay from their second jobs during this period, though some are able to work remotely.
- Potential Expulsion – The Supreme Court plans to have final responses to a request to expel the lawmakers filed on September 4, per the requests of the Governor and the Attorney General. No Texas lawmaker has been removed from office solely for breaking quorum. No U.S. Governor has gotten the courts to remove a member of the Legislature for refusing to show in protest of legislation. The Supreme Court is entirely Republican, and two-thirds have been appointed by Abbott.
Prominent Republicans in the Fight
Attorney General Ken Paxton has promised to hunt down and compel attendance, without any authority. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), who is currently facing a tough primary challenge from the Texas Attorney General, announced that the FBI granted his request for an investigation to help locate and return the Democrats who left the state. The role the FBI will/is playing has not been made public. Governor Abbott can call as many special sessions as he chooses and has announced his intention to call for special sessions, “until this Texas first agenda [is] passed.”
Members at Risk Under the New Maps
The redrawn Congressional map proposed by Republicans would put several incumbent Democrats at risk of losing their seats in 2026. These include:
Source: CNN
Rep. Greg Casar (TX-35) – Casar’s district went to Harris by 33 pts; the new maps would create a Trump +10 district outside of San Antonio.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-37) – A large part of Casar’s district would move into Doggett’s, likely setting up a primary match between the two.
Source: CNN
Rep. Julie Johnson (TX-32) – The Dallas-based district would stretch into East Texas, turning it into a Trump +18 seat.
Rep. Marc Veasey (TX-33) – The district would likely remain blue, but Veasey would lose his hometime and political base. Similar to Casar and Doggett, Veasey would likely be forced into a primary with Johnson.
Source: CNN
Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX-28) – Currently, Cuellar’s district is Trump +7. The new map would bump it to Trump +10.
Source: CNN
Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (TX-34) – This district would become even redder, making it harder for Gonzalez to keep his seat. In 2024, he won by just 3 points.
Source: CNN
Rep. Al Green (D-TX-9) – This district would merge with the district previously represented by the late Representative Sylvester Turner (D), making the district much more conservative. Though Green almost certainly wouldn’t run in TX-9, he might run for the TX-18 empty seat, which will be filled this November.
Redistricting Process
After each census, states redistrict themselves to account for population changes and maintain a proportionally representative 435-seat House. The last census took place in 2020, complicated by COVID and political divisiveness. While mid-cycle redistricting is uncommon, it is not explicitly prohibited.
Each state determines its own process. Common practices include:
- The state legislature draws and the Governor has the option to veto.
- Special Commissions, which are partisan, bipartisan, or independent, advise legislators or serve as backup during a deadlock.
- Independent commissions of ordinary citizens that draw instead of legislators.
While some states use a combination of the above, independent commissions are becoming popular as they are seen to reduce gerrymandering.
As seen below, states with Republican strongholds tend to have the worst cases of gerrymandering.
Source: Gerrymandering Project, Princeton
Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is the manipulation of district lines to protect or change political power. It has resulted in some very strangely shaped districts and inspired the creation of the Ugly Gerry Font, a type font that uses actual house districts that look like each letter of the alphabet. Gerrymandering is most often done by considering voters’ political registration and race.
Gerrymandering methods can look like:
- Drawing a district so that all of a minority (political or racial) group exists in one district, limiting their power to gain control of multiple seats.
- Drawing a district to prevent a strong voting block by putting small amounts of the group in multiple districts.
Gerrymandering is one of the few issues that Americans agree on. In a new YouGov poll, only 9 percent reported approving of political gerrymandering. Yet, despite broad disapproval, there is no path toward either party disarming this particular weapon. The Voting Rights Act, which has faced judicial dismantling in recent years, attempts to prevent racial gerrymandering of the latter method.
SCOTUS on Redistricting
While specific kinds of gerrymandering can be found unconstitutional, partisan gerrymandering is not inherently illegal. SCOTUS has ruled that Congress could one day pass a law making partisan gerrymandering illegal nationwide, but neither party has done so when it has had the chance, nor has any bipartisan agreement come to fruition to limit the practice.
Important cases relating to gerrymandering include:
- Baker v. Carr (1962) established that redistricting cases could be litigated in federal courts.
- Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) established that districts need to be drawn as close to equal populations as possible.
- Shaw v. Reno (1993) established the legal principle that racial considerations in redistricting are subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, a principle that has been reaffirmed in subsequent cases.
- Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) established that partisan gerrymandering is fair game unless a state’s constitution explicitly prohibits it or if Congress passes a law banning the practice.
- Cooper v. Harris (2017) is the most recent in a string of major decisions on racial gerrymandering, which held that “A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason to.”
The reason neither side outlaws gerrymandering is simple: when parties are in power, they generally see the current congressional map as having helped them win elections, so they are reluctant to redraw the map to remove their advantage. As it stands, Texas Democrats have not bothered suing Governor Abbott or the Texas GOP over their actions: SCOTUS would likely rule that there is nothing inherently illegal about mid-decade gerrymandering, even if it is underhanded.
LA Supreme Court Case and the Voting Rights Act
SCOTUS will hear oral arguments for Callais v. Landry on October 15, and Louisiana’s two majority-minority districts. Louisiana was ordered by a federal court to redraw its map to create two such districts on the grounds that the previous map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), a provision that has been used to block racially-discriminatory redistricting that dilutes the voting power of a racial or ethnic group. In response, a group of “non-African-American voters” sued to block this second district, arguing that the map is too heavily based on race and thus violates the laws against racial gerrymandering.
SCOTUS took up the case last year and heard oral arguments last March. SCOTUS punted decision-making, asking the litigants to address more pointed questions on the legality of the map redraw. Considering comments and dissents written by Justice Thomas and the other conservative judges, many legal scholars worry SCOTUS is gearing up to kill the VRA outright under the guise of it violating the 15th Amendment via gerrymandering. This would destroy one of the few remaining guardrails against partisan gerrymandering, and red states will waste no time in redrawing their maps to dilute the votes of Democratic-leaning minorities even more. This increased voter disenfranchisement pushes our country farther away from our democratic ideals and the principle of one person, one vote.
Redistricting Dominoes
There is much speculation about how redistricting in Texas could cause a domino effect in other states. While most states have not released proposed plans for new districts, some members are considered to be at risk with the potential for redistricting.
| Democrats at Risk | Republicans at Risk |
| Rep. Emilia Sykes, OH-13 Rep. Mary Kaptur, OH-09 Rep. Greg Landsman, OH-01 Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, MO-05 Rep. Frank Mrvan, IN-01 Rep. André Carson, IN-07 | Rep Ken Calvert, CA-41 Rep. Darrell Issa, CA-48 Rep. David Valadao, CA-21 Rep. Doug LaMalfa, CA-01 Rep. Kevin Kiley, CA-03 |
States where threats or considerations of redistricting have been floated but specific changes to Congressional maps have not been publicized include Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York, Missouri, and Kansas.
The states most likely to move forward are:
- Texas – Gov. Abbott is prepared to authorize special sessions for as long as it takes. Democrats aren’t expected to stay away past this weekend.
- California – Gov. Newsom continues to affirm that when state lawmakers return, they will authorize a referendum to mid-cycle redistricting. New polling suggests Newsom has an uphill climb to get this approved.
- Ohio – Per its constitution, Ohio is mandated to redistrict this year, as the 2021 redistricting was only good for four years due to its passing along partisan lines.
California
Governor Newsom, who may be planning a Presidential run, is full steam ahead on both his redistricting strategy and his media strategy. On Thursday, he hosted a rally where he confirmed the special election that will take place on November 4 to approve the Election Rigging Response Act. During the speech, Border Patrol made their presence known by targeting undocumented people right outside.
The Independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CCRC) uses census data to redraw maps at every level. In California, mid-cycle redistricting must be approved by voters, as it circumvents the CCRC. If voters approve this in November, it will allow Democrats to pass a new House map for the 2026 midterms. The measure is expected to include “trigger” language, meaning new maps will only be implemented if Texas implements its new maps. This map only applies to the congressional ballot, and the state would revert to the traditional method of redistricting the new census after the 2030 election. Both Houses are expected to hear the bill on Tuesday, with the Appropriations Committee review on Wednesday, and a final floor vote on Thursday. To maintain this timeline, no amendments can be added as they will result in a delay under the 72-hour rule.
On Thursday evening, Politico reported on a redistricting breakdown leak that listed the following district changes:
| Member | Safety Change |
| Rep. Doug LaMalfa, CA-01 (R) | Safe Republican to Safe Democratic |
| Rep. Kevin Kiley, CA-03 (R) | Safe Republican to Safe Democratic |
| Rep. Ken Calvert, CA-41 (R) | Safe Republican to Safe Democratic |
| Rep. Darrell Issa, CA-48 (R) | Safe Republican to Lean Democratic |
| Rep. Adam Gray, CA-13 (D) | Lean Republican to Safe Democratic |
| Rep. George Whitesides, CA-27 (D) | Lean Democratic to Safe Democratic |
| Rep. Derek Tan, CA-45 (D) | Lean Democratic to Safe Democratic |
| Rep. Dave Min, CA-47 (D) | Lean Democratic to Safe Democratic |
| Rep. Josh Harder, CA-09 (D) | Lean Democratic to Safe Democratic |
In response, nine California Republicans issued a joint statement where they flagged a strong bipartisan majority of voters disapproving of political gerrymandering.
Ohio
Ohio Republicans make up just 30 percent of registered voters, yet outnumber Democratic representatives two to one on the federal level and maintain a trifecta on the state level, including five of the seven Ohio Redistricting Commission Seats. The first deadline for redistricting in Ohio is in September. The Bipartisan Supreme Court has a history of striking down overtly political maps.
Taking the House… and the future?
With their slim 220-seat majority, Republicans can only afford a net loss of 2 seats in 2026, an election that historically could be good for Democrats. Redistricting in Texas alone is unlikely to prevent Republicans from losing the House, considering their net loss of 40 House seats during Trump’s first presidential term. However, there are far fewer GOP seats with voters hostile to Trump, with just 3 anti-Trump GOP districts, compared to 25 in his first term. If Republicans successfully gerrymander their way into long-term control, Democrats will surely be blamed for allowing it to happen. Yet, if Democrats join in a tit for tat exchange on the issue, disenfranchising more voters along the way, they risk supporting the ‘both sides’ argument that has so many Americans frustrated with politics. The long-term implications of politicians picking their voters rather than voters picking their representatives are vast and a threat to the legacy of Democracy.