Over the last several weeks, I have been following and writing about the nationwide redistricting debate going on in America. The “Redistricting Wars” - as its been so aptly called by the press, was kicked off with Donald Trump pushing the state of Texas to redraw its Congressional districts. Since then, several states have been engaged in the process of redrawing their congressional districts; gerrymandering them to ensure their respective party in power increases their electoral success in next year’s midterms.
I have written three major articles on this topic already. You can see each article below, which I highly recommend for getting a full picture of the dynamic going on with the redistricting issue.
Part 1: Issue 249 covered the basics of redistricting and the issue of gerrymandering. I examined the history of gerrymandering in America, a practice much older than people realize. I also looked at the current US House map to see which states, red and blue, rigged their maps with gerrymandered lines.
In that above article, I took both parties to task for bad lines. However, as the article highlights, thanks to Democrats supporting independent redistricting at a larger level, more states have Republican gerrymanders than Democratic ones, leading to a House map that is biased toward the GOP already.
Part 2: Issue 250 looked at how the 2025 redistricting fight began. This specifically focused on Donald Trump’s openly partisan push to redraw lines in Texas to add “five more seats” for the Republicans in the 2026 midterms. The map passed does indeed convert five Democratic-held districts into double-digit Trump seats.
That article also looks at redraw efforts in Indiana and Missouri, which are in the middle of redistricting debates as we speak. I also highlight how unprecedented it is for an incumbent President to push for legislative redraws of lines; a clear effort to ensure his party retains power in the midterm. This is a further example of Trump’s lack of respect for democratic norms.
Part 3: Issue 251 looks at the Democratic response to the remaps in Texas and elsewhere. California has responded aggressively, promising to pass their own map that will draw out 3 to 5 Republican Congresspeople in order to counter the Texas map. That effort will be subject to a referendum in November.
That article looks at the debate that took place within the Democratic Party on how to respond to Republican gerrymandering. Since the party has taken a long term position in favor of independent redistricting, some felt that gerrymandering now would be hypocritical. Other democrats pointed out that rigged GOP maps making it impossible for the midterms to be won would do more damage to redistricting reform in the long run.
This article will be the conclusion to the full series, but will be followed with smaller articles on other specific states to come. This article will follow up on Part 3, delving more into the issue of the best response to the Republican gerrymandering. Some Democrats, and many good government groups, are warry of gerrymandering “back” in response to the GOP efforts.
I will examine the arguments from those who do not wish to respond with counter-maps. However, this article is much more about making the case that the efforts in California and elsewhere to counter the GOP maps is the correct decision. This view comes despite my own long fight for redistricting reform.
So with that said, lets dive into the issue. First things first, let me clarify my own position on the issues of partisan gerrymandering and redistricting reform.
My Long Battle for Reform
Those who have known me in the data world, but not personally, have commented that this latest battle over maps must be “your Superbowl.” After all, I am a longtime coverer of redistricting and data-driven politics, I must be salivating at covering new maps and even offering up some alternatives. Well I hate to break the bubble, but the current political fight over redistricting brings me nothing but sorrow.
I have long been outspoken against gerrymandering from both parties. My coverage has been heavily focused on Florida, as longtime readers can attest. However, as I have called out GOP gerrymandering in places like North Carolina and Tennessee, I was also critical of 2022 Democratic efforts to gerrymander in places like Illinois or New Mexico. One of my all time “ratios” on twitter was me calling out a New York gerrymandered map. Granted that map was eventually overturned by the courts and not implemented (see Part 3 for more on that).
I have long been BAFFLED that we accept the idea that a party has the right to draw lines to its own benefit - and that such a practice is treated as normal politics. I find our nation’s redistricting process incredibly backward and dangerous. While I am a democrat, and a very left-wing Democrat at that, I am also a firm believer in democracy as a whole. I do not celebrate rigged maps for my side. As I wrote in Issue 249; I think the lack of independent boundary commissions, something done in the UK and Canada, is a major error in our laws and constitution.
In the summer of 2021, I wrote a detailed series of article on the history of redistricting in Florida. In those articles, I plainly called out the Democratic gerrymanders of the 1980s and 1990s while equally taking the GOP gerrymanders of the 2000s to task.
This push of mine for fair representation and balanced maps as stretched across the nation and at all levels of government. I called out the efforts of Republicans to gerrymander commission lines in San Juan County, Utah at the expensive of the Navajo population. Likewise I was critical of Broward County, Florida’s gerrymandered 2012 commission map; which short circuited Black and Hispanic voting power to preserve incumbent white Democrats. I likewise celebrated court-ordered remaps of San Juan and praised commission-passed reform maps in Broward.
I want far maps, maps drawn by commissions if possible. This should be a no brainer position across America. The lack of any real regulations on this as allowed this game of chicken with maps to continue.
However, I now sit here advocating for places like California, Maryland, and New York to gerrymander their lines in response to what Trump has ordered his party to do in places like Texas, Missouri, and Indiana. I’m not happy about that, but here I am.
And let us be clear. The reason this is my position at this point in time, that we must “gerrymander back,” is for one simple reason. That reason is below.
The President is Dangerous
I discussed this plenty in Issue 250, but the key dynamic at play with these redistricting debates is that this move is being pushed directly by Donald Trump. As Trump stated, regarding Texas
“We are entitled to 5 more seats”
What happened in Texas, and is going to happen in other red states, was not a spontaneous decision made by state officials. Instead, we have the President outright stating his desire is to redraw the Congressional map to ensure his party stays in power. His allies in the Texas legislature agreed, as best seen from the CNN interview State Rep Mitch Little….
Host: "Why should you, though?"
Little: "Because it's good for our party. Its good for our state. We need to ensure Donald Trumps agenda continues to be enacted through his second term.”
I have countless quotes and articles on this cited in Issue 250, so go there for more details. Republicans have not remotely hid their desire to remap for the entire purposes of retaining control of the house in 2026, even if its done while losing the nationwide popular vote. All that matters is having the most districts, by hook or by crook.
Considering Donald Trump has never shown any regard for proper democratic norms, his eagerness to rig the 2026 midterms is not surprising. It comes as he has also began to further push for other election changes to aid his party in 2026. Trump has been howling that the census should be redone, and effort designed to shift representation to the states that back him. In addition, after meeting with Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin, Trump touted that Putin believed he’d won the 2020 election. Then Trump made his big push for the elimination of vote by mail.
I discuss this in Issue 250, but if you go back and look at the 2024 campaign, Trump encouraged his supporters to vote by mail. Of course this whole issue stems from the lie that Trump actually won the 2020 election. Of course, after he didn’t win, he tried to stage a coup in January, a coup that was thwarted. Of course Trump then went on to pardon 100% of those convicted for crimes on January 6th, including those who assaulted police officers.
Now, back in office, Trump and his team are doing everything they can to avoid a repeat of 2020: aka facing off with the voters in a free and fair election.
These efforts to change election rules and remap the Congressional districts are designed to keep elections, but manipulate them via suppression and gerrymandering to make it almost impossible to lose a vote. This is a tactic we see in many countries; namely places like Turkey or Hungary. In fact, the Trump moves here follow closely from the playbook of Hungarian strongman Victor Orban, who has used state power and election changes to remain in power for 15 years now; eroding Hungarian democracy. The Hungarian system is best known as “managed Democracy” or “competitive authoritarianism.”
These redistricting pushes and arguments about the census and voting methods are not in a vacuum. They come with a litany of Trump moves that show he is an authoritarian at heart. From having national guard troops storm into Democratic cities, to having he FBI investigate political rivals, to trying to shake down TV stations for better coverage. All of this fits in with the authoritarian model.
The Trump goal is simple in the cases of redistricting. Draw maps wherever they can so that even if Republicans lose the nationwide vote next year, they still will retain control of the House. Creating an election system that remains unresponsive to vote sentiment is a key tactic for autocrats that want to give the glimmer of legitimacy.
If Trump succeeds in creating a House map that cannot realistically see the Republican Party ever lose power, then its not a real democracy anymore.
So then the question is, what do you do to stop that?
No, You Cannot “Just Win” Rigged Elections
As someone who has been open about the distaste for partisan gerrymandering, I have quickly grown exhausted by the arguments of those who seek to stop any Democratic efforts to respond to what is happening on the Republican side. The goal of the Democrats is to preserve a map that gives both parties an opportunity to win control of the US House. Democrats or reform-minded groups that criticize this tactic do not present a true alternative.
One key issue is the flawed logic that if the voters simply reject these anti-democratic efforts, the remaps won’t matter. Basically, some are saying that if the voters of Texas, for example, truly hate the anti-democracy moves of the remap, they could always send Democrats to Congress anyway. Such Democratic candidates could win these double-digit Trump districts because voters opt to “send a message.” This sentiment was recently exhibited by longtime reporter Chuck Todd.
Below you can see Todd take Democrats to task for their own gerrymandering effort, and instead argue that Democrats should simply invest money in Texas to win the newly-gerrymandered districts.
.Todd’s sentiment may sound good on paper but is also a perfect example of how many political reports don’t know how to actually run or win elections. Todd may be some big TV personality, but I promise you I’d whip his ass in any campaign. His proposal is directly out of fantasy land.
In his posts, Todd is basically arguing that Democrats should just push to win several of the Trump districts in this map. Note that not a SINGLE DISTRICT voted within 10% in the 2024 Presidential Election. Most of these seats were well over 15% to 20% in support of the President. These are races with hundreds of thousands of voters.
Todd’s idea that money for voter registration or turnout or persuasion could possibly make the difference. However, this is a theory that is countered by all modern political realities. We do not see ticket splitting at this level anymore, with double-digit seats for a Presidents party defecting to the other side. There is also just a law of diminishing returns. Democrats could put 20 million into one district, and honestly after 10 million spend, voters tune the commercials out. You cannot persuade enough people with money. There also is not nearly enough unregistered “likely democrats” to close the gap in any of these seats.
The idea that instead of spending money on the California ballot measure and instead investing it in Texas is a truly foolish notion. It shows Todd does not understand basic elections, which is a sad reality for someone who is a political reporter.
The Naivety of Some Reform Groups
For many years, different non-partisan orgs that focus on “good government” reforms have pushed heavily for redistricting changes. Moves toward independent commissions have been the common goal; that or at least pushing for court scrutiny of political gerrymandering.
Like myself, many of the pro-reform organizations are dismayed by the events going across the country. However, how they have responded varies by organization. While some of these groups and individuals have accepted that they must allow the Democratic remaps as a response, others have stuck to a “gerrymandering must always be opposed” sentiment.
Several organizations have maintained opposition to gerrymandering from both sides. A good listing of different election-reform groups that are opposed to the gerrymandering arms race can be seen here. I respect their positions, but their comments strike me as insanely naive to what is going on.
For example, here we see Jeremy Gruber, Senior Vice President of “Open Primaries” - state
“When politicians manipulate the lines of their districts, it’s always the voters who lose. This current fight to the bottom by both parties is sorely lacking the real political leadership our country desperately needs to move forward.”
Gruber is not wrong that voters lose out in this scenario. I’ve said this for years. However, where this statement falls flat is ignoring the reason the arms race is going on. We have an authoritarian President, someone who tried to stage a coup in 2021 to stay in power, pushing to rig the midterms to ensure his party remains in power. The “real political leadership” that Gruber references is the Democrats being willing to put their own ideas aside and do what is needed to try and preserve Democracy.
Pushing remaps right now does not mean reform cannot be pushed down the line. These remaps in California, New York, or elsewhere, are a response to a brazen partisan and anti-democracy tactic already being waged. In fact, as noted, the California remap is designed to only change its districts till 2030. After that, the independent commission that draws California’s maps will be back in place. Sadly, reforms must be put on hold in this emergency, but those reforms are not repealed.
These opposition groups honestly remind of scene from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” (yeah that’s right, I’m going there). At this moment (full video here), Theoden, the King of Rohan, struggles with how to respond to the growing threat of an army that aims to conquer his kingdom. Wary of a war that would bring death to his people he seeks to avoid direct conflict.
To this sentiment, which is perfectly understandable. Aragorn, however, lays out the reality before the kingdom of Rohan.
This is the dark reality before us. There is no action the left can make to counter the President that does not involve responding with their own maps. Those who wish to avoid a race to the bottom do not realize the hole has already been dug.
War is here.
Common Cause Rises to the Moment
This is a sentiment, that open war is here, is better understood by Common Cause, the organization that went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2019 to try and get a ruling banning partisan gerrymandering.
I discussed that case more in Issue 249, but Common Cause has been pushing to ban partisan gerrymandering for many years. In 2019, in the case of Rucho vs Common Cause, the organization challenged partisan gerrymander in North Carolina, seeking a ruling from the court to regulate the practice of partisan map drawing. The conservative Supreme Court, however, refused to take a stand against the practice of partisan gerrymandering, ruling it out of their jurisdiction. The unfortunate decision aside, Common Cause’s position is beyond reproach on the issue of being anti-gerrymandering.
Common Cause subsequently was apprehensive about Democratic efforts to remap at the start, especially as California was originally responding just to Texas. However, as other Republican states rapidly indicated they’d be willing to gerrymander the lines, the organization began to rethink how to handle events.
In a statement that came out on August 12th, the organization has made it clear that they will not endorse partisan gerrymandering, but also understand the dynamics currently at play.
We won’t call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism – or let our country’s balance of power be decided not by the voters, but by the will of one political party.
Seeking to find a way to maintain its integrity, but seeing the real threat before us, the organization came up with a new model for judging maps in the short term.
The New “Fairness Criteria”
With unliteral disarmament not a valid option amid Trump’s anti-democracy push, Common Cause came up with a new tool for judging maps: its Fairness Criteria.
The criteria in question that Common Cause has laid out can be seen below. This is directly copied from their website.
Proportionality: Any mid-decade redistricting should be a targeted response proportional to the threat posed by mid-decade gerrymanders in other states.
Public participation: Any redistricting must include meaningful public participation, whether through ballot initiatives or open public processes.
Racial equity: Redistricting must not further racial discrimination or dilute the political voice of Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian American, and Pacific Islander, or other communities of color.
Federal reform: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, including provisions banning mid-decade redistricting and partisan gerrymandering.
Endorsement of independent redistricting: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse a neutral, fair redistricting system, such as citizen-led independent redistricting commissions, as the long-term solution.
Time-limited: Any new redistricting maps must expire following the 2030 Census, which counts all people in our country, and be replaced through the regular decennial redistricting process.
Common cause is subsequently acknowledging the reality before them. To stick to blind “no don’t reply” and risk the GOP winning control of Congress forever means that no nationwide redistricting reform can ever be achieved. At the same time, they have done what they can to set standards that Democratic map makes should be guided by. I find all of these principles to strong and fair.
The organization has found divide within its own ranks on the matter. After announcing the Fairness Criteria, a handful of members of the board resigned. Common Cause President had nothing negative to say about the members, stating “their perspectives have been valuable, and we are grateful for their service.” Likewise I am not here to pass judgement, though I do firmly stand with those that remained with the board, as they are the ones to truly grasp the issue at hand.
Not All Gerrymanders are Equal
While several smaller starts are debating redistricting maps right now, the biggest players in the game have been Texas and California. The California map, which I discussed in Part 3, will not be official law until it is passed by the voters in November. Both maps would be clear partisan gerrymanders, eliminating 3 to 5 seats held by opposition parties in each respective state.
However, as the Common Cause organization highlighted, and as other organizations, like the League of Women Voters, have noted, not all gerrymanders are equal. Here the key issue is the use of race in the map drawing process.
The Texas map, which has now been signed into law, is the subject to a racial gerrymandering lawsuit already. This suit stems from the fact that the new map not only eliminates Democratic seats, but it weakens Hispanic and Black representation.
The table below highlights the issue at hand. These are the hyper-democratic seats that Texas lawmakers drew in 2021/2022 and have now revised in 2025. All these districts are currently held by Democrats, with two additional Democrats representing Hispanic-heavy Texas border seats not shown in the table. Three of these seats are “eliminated” - meaning they have been redrawn to become double-digit Trump districts that will for sure send a Republican to Congress next year.
As Texas Republicans have aimed to defend their map, that have pointed to the fact that created two Black-Majority seats, the 16th and 30th, while no Black-majority seats existed before. However, Black voters in Texas did not need majority districts to elect candidates of their choice. Instead this map packs Black voters into fewer seats, thus weakening their power on the entire statewide delegation.
Their are current FOUR seats that have been sending Black representatives to Congress
The 9th, 18th, 30th, and 33rd
In the Houston area, Black and Hispanic voting strength is weakened
The new map eliminates the Black-performing 9th altogether
The black-performing 18th is packed with more Black voters, even though tis not needed
The Hispanic-majority 29th is now converted into a seat that pits Black and Hispanic voters to fight for representation
In the Dallas area, Black voting strength is weakened
The 30th, already performing for Black voters, is further packed
As liberal whites are carved out of the 32nd, the weaken the Black share of the 33rd district
In pushing their partisan gerrymander, Texas Republicans have also passed a racial gerrymander. The map packs Black voters to limit their effect on other districts while forcing Black and Hispanic Democrats to fight for seats.
The California map being put on the ballot this November, however, does not aim use racial minorities as pawns in the map making process.
The plan does not make its Democratic gains by hurting Black or Hispanic districts already drawn in the state. This was a specific goal of those drafting the map. California Democrats noted they could have drawn a 52-0 map if they just tried to get around the Voting Rights Act, but that was not their intention.
“Diluting, cracking and packing Black votes in Texas is how they are achieving their most segregated maps in 60 years, and we were mindful of not doing that,” Assemblymember Isaac Bryan
The newly proposed map maintains racial balances, with most big district changes coming in heavily white areas. The new plan also increases the voting power of Asian American voters, a sizeable minority in California, in several seats.
It is for this distinct difference between the two states that Common Cause has been able to state that the California plan meets its Fairness Criteria, while the Texas plan does not. I’m sure partisan Republicans will argue “a gerrymander is a gerrymander” - but it absolutely is not. The Texas map is even worse than just its partisan affect, the California plan aims to preserve minority community strength.
All other Democrats states that remap should keep the Fairness Criteria in mind.
Final Thoughts
While this is the end of my official “Redistricting Wars” series - its hardly the end of redistricting coverage for me in the coming weeks. I am working on articles about the Ohio remap to come (which is the product of a state constitutional mandate) and will be looking at Florida possibly remapping as well. I also will surely be covering other state maps as they come into form, whether from places like Indiana, Missouri, or Maryland.
It is a sad state of affairs in this country. I wish I could say I am surprised, but I am not. While I do not relish these gerrymandering wars, I am resolute that the Democrats are right to fight fire with fire. There is no benefit in sitting back as an the authoritarian-minded monster of a President we have tries to shield himself from accountability from the voters.
The redistricting war is being waged. Stand up and fight!