Democrats seek to fight fire with fire on redistricting
The Democrats are quick to maintain that mid-decade redistricting — a rare move defying the traditional decennial process — is a rotten trend to emulate and a bad precedent to set. But the urgency in what Democrats see as an existential fight against Trump demands a bending of the rules, they say, to fight fire with fire.
'If the Republicans are going to redistrict in the middle of the decade, then we have no choice but to do the same,' said Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.). 'Because to do otherwise would be unilateral disarmament.'
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is already heading in that direction, saying he's weighing multiple options for how the state can redraw its lines to counter the Texas GOP. And there's speculation that Democratic leaders in several other blue states, including Illinois and New York, are assessing whether to follow suit.
As those discussions evolve, House Democrats say they're facing two bad options: Either they stick to their favored tradition of once-a-decade redistricting and watch Republicans, with a boost from Texas, keep control of the House in 2027, or they hold their noses and adopt the mid-decade remapping to neutralize the changes coming from Austin. Given the stakes, many are leaning toward the latter.
'It's a race to the bottom, and I wish we weren't in this place,' said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.). 'But they have sort of forced the conversation, and I think you can understand why California and some other places feel like they've got no choice but to consider something like that.'
'I mean, are we just going to sit back and take it?'
Trump fired off the first salvo this month when he said he was vying to pick up five seats in Texas as Gov. Greg Abbott (R) holds a special session next week to consider redistricting, among other priorities. Republicans in Washington are bracing for the traditional headwinds that accompany the president's party in power during midterm seasons, and a midcycle map redrawing in deep-red Texas could help blunt the Republicans' losses next year.
The move quickly infuriated Democrats, who saw Trump and Republicans as trying to game the system and preserve their slim House majority, before Democrats decided to change their tune and try to offset potential Republican gains by considering midcycle redistricting in blue states.
'We can act holier than thou. We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be,' Newsom told reporters during a press conference on Wednesday. 'Or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment.'
California uses an independent redistricting commission to draw the state's maps, a body that was initially borne out of a ballot measure that state voters approved in 2008, and that was later updated in 2010.
Newsom has floated several ideas of how Democrats could tackle midcycle redistricting around the independent commission: One would be to create a constitutional amendment to go before voters, which would likely address the independent redistricting body, so that lawmakers could redraw the House maps.
Another would be what he described as a 'novel legal question,' which would ultimately end in lawmakers crafting the lines themselves on the idea that the state constitution doesn't say anything about what happens during midcycle redistricting.
Members of California's congressional delegation have signaled they're on board even if their initial preference is to adhere to the independent redistricting commission.
'It's out of my hands, it's not really my choice or my process, but I do think that Democrats need to stop bringing [a] butter knife to a gunfight,' said Rep. Dave Min (D-Calif.), who represents a competitive House seat.
'All of us want to see a fair process, but if Republicans are going to try to cheat and redistrict, I think Democratic states need to consider all options,' he added.
Huffman said Democrats in California could 'easily' pick up three or four seats through redistricting — and 'maybe more.'
As Newsom plots his next move, some Democrats say other blue states should jump on board.
Torres said New York laws would make the process tricky, but he's pushing for it all the same, 'to the extent that we can legally.'
'New York is more complicated because of the state constitution,' he said. 'But if Republicans are going to exhaust every means of building political power, then we should reciprocate.'
Asked if New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) is considering a midcycle redistricting push, her senior communications adviser Jerrel Harvey told The Hill in a statement: 'Governor Hochul is closely monitoring the redistricting developments in Texas and any potential implications they may have.'
In Illinois, some Democrats are singing a similar tune, arguing that Texas's moves demand a retaliatory response that might include new maps in Springfield.
'Given the extremity of what Texas is considering, it can't be ruled out,' said Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.). 'They're dismantling the Voting Rights Act and disenfranchising communities that have been protected in the past, given their historic disenfranchisement.'
'We need to look at all possible recourse to keep the playing field as level as possible,' he added.
The official justification for the Texas redistricting was provided by Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ), which sent a July 7 letter to Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton saying the district lines are illegal because race was a factor in how they were drawn. The suggestion was that the process discriminated against white voters.
Four districts in particular 'currently constitute unconstitutional 'coalition districts' and we urge the State of Texas to rectify these race-based considerations,' Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the DOJ's civil rights division, wrote to the Texas officials.
Democrats say that argument strains credulity, since it was Abbott and GOP legislators who drew the current lines just four years ago. They're accusing Republicans of abusing their authority — and diluting the minority vote — in a brazen effort to 'rig' the map to stay in power because they couldn't win otherwise.
'It's painfully clear why Republicans are doing this. They know they are going to lose the majority next year,' said Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the head of the House Democrats' campaign arm.
While Democrats believe redistricting is a needed avenue to counteract Republicans' redistricting push in Texas, the party faces several hurdles of its own. For one, some members of the party have expressed qualms over the idea to redistrict midcycle, suggesting it's antidemocratic.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), however, countered those concerns by saying that voters were 'pissed' that many 'lost their health care under the president's reconciliation bill.'
'They're also pissed that their neighbors are being apprehended by people wearing masks and indefinitely being detained, and these are nonviolent people that it's happening to,' Swalwell added. 'So right now, they're saying, 'Protect us,' and this is one break-glass way to protect it.'
A more serious hurdle, though, could be how the maps are drawn and whether they violate the Voting Rights Act. Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), said that shaving down majority-minority seats 'runs the danger of violating the Voting Rights Act.'
Saenz said that MALDEF would sue if either party engaged in midcycle redistricting that violated the Voting Rights Act as it pertained to Latino communities.
Meanwhile, Democrats across the board say the stakes are high.
'This is not just about Texas or California or any other blue state — this is really the moment where we decide as a country whether our democracy succeeds or fails, because it is about something so much bigger,' said Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas).
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

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


New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
Speaker Johnson says it would be 'great service to country' if Ghislaine speaks on Epstein
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday said it would be a 'great service to the country' if late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, comes clean and discloses the information she has. Johnson (R-La.) acknowledged he is unsure whether Maxwell can be trusted to tell the truth to the House Oversight Committee, which has subpoenaed her for testimony, and argued that she should still face more than 20 years behind bars. Asked on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday if Maxwell could be trusted, the speaker admitted, 'It's a good question. 4 House Speaker Mike Johnson admits Sunday he has reservations about whether Ghislaine Maxwell can be trusted to be truthful. NBC/Meet the Press 'I hope so,' Johnson said. 'I hope that she would want to come clean. We certainly are interested in knowing everything that she knows. 'She is convicted. She is serving a 20-year sentence for child sex trafficking, and so her character is in some question,' he said. But if she wants to come clean now, that would be a great service to the country, and we'd like to know every single bit of information that she has.' A rift among MAGA faithful and President Trump ripped open earlier this month when the Justice Department and FBI concluded that evidence indicated Epstein did not have an 'incriminating client list' and that he had in fact killed himself in prison. 4 Maxwell is accused of helping to procure underage girls and sex-assault victims for late sicko pal financier Jeffrey Epstein. US District Court for the Southe 4 Epstein's former lawyer has said Maxwell 'knows everything' about the sex predator. US District Court for the Southe On Thursday and Friday, US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — President Trump's former defense lawyer — met with Maxwell in Florida for several hours of questioning. Her lawyer has said she is still mulling whether to testify before the Oversight panel or invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. Trump has publicly claimed that he hasn't thought about pardoning her but also stressed, 'I am allowed to do it.' Johnson suggested that he would not be in favor of Maxwell getting presidential clemency. 'If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance. I think she should have a life sentence at least,' Johnson told the show. 'Think of all these unspeakable crimes, and as you noted earlier, probably 1,000 victims. 'It's hard to put into words how evil this was and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it,' he said. 'I think it is an unforgivable thing. So again, not my decision, but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would.' 4 Johnson talks about the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein case to NBC's Kristen Welker. NBC/Meet the Press Johnson dealt with the political reverberations over the MAGA rift on Epstein. Amid the firestorm, Trump publicly lashed out against his base, and Democrats worked to put Johnson on the spot by attempting to force votes compelling the disclosure of the Epstein files. Last Monday, Democrats on the House Rules Committee, a gatekeeper panel that determines the manner in which most pieces of legislation come up for a vote on the House floor, again attempted to put Republicans on the spot over the kerfuffle. The GOP opted to recess the Rules Committee, which effectively froze up the House of Representatives. Johnson decided to send the House home a day early for the August recess as a result. 'What we did do this week is end the chaos in the Rules Committee because the Democrats are trying to use this in a shameless manner for political purposes,' Johnson said Sunday. 'Quite obviously, they hijacked the Rules Committee, and they tried to turn it into an Epstein hearing. 'That's not what the Rules Committee is about.'


Forbes
10 minutes ago
- Forbes
U.S. And EU Reach Trade Deal—Setting Tariffs at 15%
The U.S. has agreed to a trade deal with the European Union, President Donald Trump announced Sunday afternoon, agreeing to a 15% tariff rate on most exports, including European cars, from EU countries—just days before the Aug. 1 deadline set for Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs. US President Donald Trump meets with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland ... More on Sunday. AFP via Getty Images This is a breaking story and will be updated.


CBS News
10 minutes ago
- CBS News
Vought won't rule out more rescissions funding cuts before September
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said his office is considering more options to claw back funding approved by Congress and isn't ruling out sending more bills to lawmakers with further cuts before September. Vought confirmed on CBS News' "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday that "we are looking to do [a] rescissions package" to take back some funding from the Education Department. A rescissions bill is the president's request to rescind funding already appropriated by Congress. Last week, President Trump signed a bill clawing back foreign aid, NPR and PBS funding, becoming the first president in decades to receive approval for such a measure. "We're thrilled that we had the first rescissions package in decades, and we've got the process moving again," Vought said of the $10 billion clawback. Asked to confirm there'd be no rescissions package before September, as Congress attempts to fund the government and head off a shutdown, Vought responded, "Not here to say that. We're looking at all of our options, we will look at it and assess where the Hill is, what are the particular funding opportunities that we have?" Asked about National Institutes of Health funding for research into heart disease and cancer that has yet to be released, Vought replied, "We're going through the same process with the NIH that we did with the education." He alleged NIH had wasted funds, claiming "$2 million for injecting dogs with cocaine that the NIH spent money on, $75,000 for Harvard to study blowing lizards off of trees with leaf blowers." He vowed to go "line by line to make sure the NIH is funded properly" and said funding would be released "when we are done with that review." Vought's use of rescissions measures to amend government spending is seen by Democrats and some Republicans as a backdoor method of infringing on Congress' constitutional power of the purse. "Rescissions is just a Washington name for double cross," Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, also on "Face the Nation," said after Vought's interview on the program. "They support one thing one day — the president even signs off — and then they come back and say they change their mind." But the OMB director argued, "We have the ability and the executive tools to fund less than what Congress appropriated" under the Impoundment Control Act, which enables the president to delay spending funds appropriated by Congress, and he didn't rule out a legal battle over the executive branch's authority to revise lawmakers' spending downward, if it "could find waste" by an agency. Vought has also caused GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune some headaches with a comment he made Thursday suggesting the appropriations process must be "less bipartisan." But this put Thune in a bind as he oversees negotiations to avoid a government shutdown in October, since Republicans hold a slim majority of 53 - 47 in the Senate, and most legislation must reach a 60-vote threshold. "It's going to take 60 to fund the government," Thune said in response to Vought's remark, and he added, "we plan to move [appropriations] bills that will have cooperation from the Democrats." Van Hollen said it was ironic that Vought is "calling for these deep cuts to education, NIH, when he has asked for an increase for his OMB budget." And referring to reduction-in-force — or RIF — staff cuts the administration wants across the government, Van Hollen added, "He asked for a 13% increase for his OMB budget. He's asked for more people to join the OMB staff while he's talking about RIF-ing people at other departments." The Maryland senator said that Democratic senators, as they negotiate funding government operations, are "asking for four Republican senators just to publicly declare that when they say they're gonna fund the Veterans Affairs Department, that they actually mean it."