Our Politics

Tag: electionlaw

  • California Democrats Propose New Congressional Map to Gain Up to Five Seats

    California Democrats Propose New Congressional Map to Gain Up to Five Seats

    California Democrats have unveiled a bold proposal for a new congressional map that could secure up to five additional seats for their party in the House of Representatives. This move, spearheaded by Governor Gavin Newsom, is a strategic response to Republican redistricting efforts in states like Texas, intensifying the national battle for House control ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The proposal has sparked heated debate, with critics arguing it undermines the state’s independent redistricting process, while supporters claim it’s a necessary countermeasure to maintain political balance. The proposed map targets five Republican-held districts, making them more favorable to Democrats. The affected representatives, Kevin Kiley, Doug LaMalfa, David Valadao, Darrell Issa, and Ken Calvert, now face significantly bluer constituencies. Democrats currently hold 43 of California’s 52 congressional seats, and this redistricting effort aims to solidify their dominance further.

    Governor Newsom has framed the plan as a direct response to Texas Republicans’ redistricting, which is expected to add up to five Republican seats. He argues that California must “fight fire with fire” to counter what he describes as aggressive gerrymandering in red states. To ensure public input, Newsom has proposed a special election on November 4, 2025, allowing California voters to decide on the new map, bypassing the state’s independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. “We have the opportunity to de facto end the Trump presidency in less than 18 months. That’s what’s at stake,” Newsom said at a recent press conference, emphasizing the potential for a Democratic-controlled House to check Republican influence. The state legislature is set to vote on the proposal on August 21, 2025. If approved, the new districts would apply to the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections, with the Citizens Redistricting Commission resuming its authority after the 2030 census.

    The proposal has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans and advocates for transparent governance. Republican Representative Kevin Kiley has been vocal in his opposition, introducing federal legislation to ban mid-decade redistricting and accusing Newsom of undermining California’s independent redistricting process. “This is a moment for every Californian and every American of decency, regardless of party affiliation, to speak out against the abject corruption that our governor is attempting,” Kiley declared on the House floor. Good government groups echo these concerns, arguing that bypassing the Citizens Redistricting Commission, established by voters in 2008 and expanded in 2010 to include congressional districts, erodes transparency and public trust. Jeanne Raya, a former Democratic member of the commission, warned that the lack of openness in Newsom’s plan could disenfranchise voters. “Somebody’s going to be drawing maps, whether behind a real door or a virtual door,” Raya said. “There will not be that transparency that is written into the independent commission’s work, and voters will suffer for that. California Governor Gavin Newsom defended the proposal as a transparent process, emphasizing that voters will have the final say through the special election, a step not taken in Texas, where Republican-drawn maps face no such public vote. He also noted that California’s plan includes a trigger clause, meaning it would only take effect if Texas or other red states proceed with their redistricting efforts.

    The proposal is part of a broader national struggle over redistricting. In Texas, Democrats left the state for nearly two weeks to delay Republican efforts to pass new maps, though they lack the votes to block them entirely. Other blue states, such as New York and Illinois, are exploring similar redistricting moves, but their potential for Democratic gains is limited. Meanwhile, Republican-led states like Ohio, Indiana, Florida, and Missouri are poised to capitalize on their own redistricting opportunities.

    California’s redistricting proposal highlights the escalating partisan battle over congressional representation. While Governor Gavin Newsom argues it is a necessary defense against Republican tactics, critics warn it risks further politicizing a process meant to be impartial. The outcome of the November 4 special election, if approved by the legislature, will determine whether California adopts this contentious new map, and could set a precedent for how states navigate redistricting in this polarized era. As the debate unfolds, all eyes are on California and Texas, where these dueling strategies could reshape the US House for years to come.

  • Republican Party Cements Control Over Competitive States Through Gerrymandering Going Into 2022 Elections

    Republican Party Cements Control Over Competitive States Through Gerrymandering Going Into 2022 Elections

    The Republican Party is locking in newly gerrymandered maps for the legislatures in four battleground states that are set to secure the party’s control in the statehouse chambers over the next decade, fortifying the Republicans against even the most sweeping potential Democratic wave elections. In Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, and Georgia, Republican state lawmakers have either created supermajorities capable of overriding a governor’s veto or whittled down competitive districts so significantly that Republicans’ advantage is virtually impenetrable, leaving voters in narrowly divided states powerless to change the leadership of their legislatures.

    Although much of the attention on this year’s redistricting process has focused on gerrymandered congressional maps, the new maps being drafted in state legislatures have been just as distorted. And statehouses have taken on towering importance: With the federal government gridlocked, these legislatures now serve as the country’s policy laboratory, crafting bills on abortion, guns, voting restrictions, and other issues that shape the national political debate. “This is not your founding fathers’ gerrymander,” said Chris Lamar, a senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center who focuses on redistricting. “This is something more intense and durable and permanent.”

    This redistricting cycle, the first one in a decade, builds on a political trend that accelerated in 2011 when Republicans in swing states including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan drew highly gerrymandered state legislative maps. Since those maps were enacted, Republicans have held both houses of state government in all three states for the entire decade. They never lost control of a single chamber, even as Democrats won some of the states’ races for president, governor, and Senate. All three of those Northern states are likely to see some shift back toward parity this year, with a new independent commission drawing Michigan’s maps, a state legislative commission drawing maps in Pennsylvania, and a Democratic governor in Wisconsin likely to force the process to be completed by the courts.

    Gerrymandering is a tool used by both parties in swing states as well as less competitive ones. Democrats in deep-blue states like Illinois are moving to increase their advantage in legislatures, and Republicans in deep-red states like Utah and Idaho are doing the same. But in politically contested states where Republicans hold full control, legislators are carefully expanding Republican electoral chances. They are armed with sharper technology, weakened federal voting statutes, and the knowledge that legal challenges to their maps may not be resolved in time for the next elections. Texas, North Carolina, and Ohio have signed into law new maps with a significant Republican advantage. Georgia is moving quickly to join them. Republicans say that the growth of such heavily skewed legislatures is both the result of the party’s electoral victories and of where voters choose to live.

    As Democratic voters have crowded into cities and commuter suburbs, and voters in rural and exurban areas have grown increasingly Republican, Republican mapmakers say that they risk running afoul of other redistricting criteria if they split up those densely populated Democratic areas across multiple state legislative districts. “What you see is reflective of the more even distribution of Republican and right-leaning voters across wider geographic areas,” said Adam Kincaid, the director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust. Trying to draw more competitive legislative districts, he said, would result in “just a lot of squiggly lines.” He pointed to maps in Wisconsin that were proposed by a commission created by Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat. Under those designs, Republicans would still have a majority in both state legislative chambers, though with significantly smaller margins. “They’re limited by geography,” Kincaid said. “There’s only so many things you can do to spread that many voters across a wide area.”

    Democrats note that Republicans are still cracking apart liberal communities, especially in suburbs near Akron and Cleveland in Ohio and in predominantly Black counties in northern and central North Carolina, in a way that hurts the Democrats and cuts against a geographical argument. “They are carving up Democratic voters where they can’t pack them,” said Garrett Arwa, the director of campaigns at the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. He argued that Democratic map proposals “all put forth better and fairer maps that I would say are far from a Rorschach test.”

    Democrats have fewer opportunities to unilaterally draw state legislative maps, particularly in battleground states. Of the 14 states where the margin of the 2020 presidential race was fewer than 10 percentage points, Democrats are able to draw state legislative maps in just one: Nevada. Republicans control the redistricting process in six of those 14 states. But when Democrats have had an opening, they have also enacted significant gerrymanders at the state legislative level. In Nevada, Democrats are close to finalizing a map that would give them supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature, despite President Biden’s winning just 51 percent of the state’s vote last year. The same holds true in deeply blue states. In Illinois, newly drawn State Senate maps would give Republicans roughly 23 percent of seats in the chamber, even though former President Donald Trump won more than 40 percent of voters in the state in 2020.

    Republicans have taken two approaches to ensure durable majorities in state legislatures. The tactics in Texas and Georgia are more subtle, while Republicans in Ohio and North Carolina have taken more brazen steps. In Texas and Georgia, the party has largely eliminated competitive districts and made both Republican and Democratic seats safer, a move that tends to ward off criticism from at least some incumbents in the minority party. “Out of the 150 seats in the Texas House, only six of them are within seven points or closer,” said Sam Wang, the director of the Princeton Redistricting Project. Republicans now hold a 20-seat advantage in the chamber, 85 to 65, and the new maps will give the party roughly two more seats. So while the Republican lawmakers did not try to draw an aggressive supermajority, “what they really did a good job of there is getting rid of competition and getting a reasonably safe majority for themselves,” Wang said.

    In Georgia, where redistricting is ongoing, early maps follow a trend line similar to that of Texas, as Republicans try to eliminate competitive districts. With the current gerrymandered maps in place, Democrats in the state legislature would have needed to win more than 55.7 percent of the vote to flip the Georgia House in 2020, according to the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. The new maps proposed in Georgia maintain that 55 percent threshold, according to Princeton. Republicans in Ohio have taken more risks than their counterparts in other states, keeping some districts more competitive in an effort to increase the party’s majorities. In Ohio and North Carolina, however, Republicans are taking a forceful tack. By keeping some districts moderately competitive, they are taking more risks in an attempt to create significant majorities or supermajorities, and in doing so, they are often flouting laws or court decisions.