How California draws congressional districts
Tribune News Service
The potential redrawing of California's congressional district lines could upend the balance of power in Washington, DC, in next year's midterm congressional election. The unusual and unexpected redistricting may take place in coming months because of sparring among President Donald Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Redrawing these maps — known as redistricting — is an esoteric practice that many voters tune out, but one that has an outsized impact on political power and policy in the United States. Here is a breakdown about why a process that typically occurs once every decade is currently receiving so much attention — and the potential ramifications.
What is redistricting? There are 435 members of the US House of Representatives, each of whom is supposed to represent roughly the same number of constituents. Every decade, after the US Census counts the population across the nation, the allocation of congressional representatives for each state can change. For example, after the 2020 census, California's share of congressional districts was reduced by one for the first time in state history. After the decennial census, states redraw district lines for congressional and legislative districts based on population shifts, protections for minority voters required by the federal Voting Rights Act and other factors. For much of the nation's history, such maps were created by state legislators and moneyed interests in smoke-filled backrooms. Many districts were grossly gerrymandered — contorted — to benefit political parties and incumbents, such as California's infamous "Ribbon of Shame," a congressional district that stretched in a reed-thin line 200 miles along the California coast from Oxnard to the Monterey County line.
But in recent decades, political-reform organizations and some elected officials, notably former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, called for independent drawing of district lines. In 2010, the state's voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure requiring California congressional maps to be drawn by a bipartisan commission, which it did in 2011 and 2021.
Why are we talking about this? President Trump recently urged Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional districts to increase the number of GOP members of the House in next year's midterm election. Congress is closely divided, and the party that does not control the White House traditionally loses seats in the body two years after the presidential election. Trump has been able to enact his agenda — from deporting undocumented immigrants to extending tax breaks that largely benefit the wealthy to closing some Planned Parenthood clinics — because the GOP controls the White House, the Senate and the House. But if Democrats flip Congress, Trump's agenda will likely be stymied and he faces the prospect of being a lame duck during his last two years in office.
What is Texas doing? Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state's Legislature into special session last week to discuss the disastrous floods that killed more than 130 people as well as redistricting before the 2026 election. Trump and his administration urged Abbott to redraw his state's congressional lines with the hope of picking up five seats. Abbott has said that his decision to include redistricting in the special session was prompted by a court decision last year that said the state no longer has to draw "coalition districts" that are made up of multiple minority communities. New district lines would give Texans greater opportunity to vote for politicians who best represent them, the governor said in interviews.
Democrats in the Lone Star state's Legislature met with Newsom in Sacramento on Friday to discuss the ramifications of mid-decade redistricting and accused Trump of trying to rig next year's midterm election to hold onto power. Republicans "play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away," Newsom said of the nation's history. "We are not going to allow that to happen." Democratic lawmakers in Texas have previously fled the state to not allow the Legislature to have a quorum, such as in 2021 during a battle over voting rights. But with the deadly flooding, this is an unlikely prospect this year.
Why is California in the mix? The Golden State's congressional districts are drawn by an independent commission focused on logical geography, shared interests, representation for minority communities and other facets. If the state reverts to partisan map drawing, redistricting experts on both sides of the aisle agree that several GOP incumbents in the 52-member delegation would be vulnerable, either because of more Democratic voters being placed in their districts, or being forced into face-offs with fellow Republican members of Congress. There are currently nine Republican members of the delegation, a number that could shrink to three or four, according to political statisticians.
Strange bedfellows These dizzying developments have created agreement among rivals while dividing former allies.
Sara Sadhwani, a member of the 2021 redistricting commission and longtime supporter of independent map drawing, said she supports Democratic efforts to change California's congressional districts before the midterm election. "I stand by the work of the commission of course. We drew fair and competitive maps that fully abided by federal laws around the Voting Rights Act to ensure communities of colour have an equal opportunity at the ballot box," said Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College. "That being said, especially when it comes to Congress, most certainly California playing fair puts Democrats at a disadvantage nationally." She said the best policy would be for all 50 states to embrace independent redistricting. But in the meantime, she supports Democratic efforts in California to temporarily redraw the districts given the stakes. "I think it's patriotic to fight against what appears to be our democracy falling into what appears to be authoritarian rule," Sadhwani said. Charles Munger Jr., the son of a late billionaire who was Warren Buffet's right-hand man, spent more than $12 million to support the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission and is invested in making sure that it is not weakened. "He's very much committed to making sure the commission is preserved," said someone close to Munger who requested anonymity to speak candidly. Munger believes "this is ultimately political quicksand and a redistricting war at the end of day is a loss to American voters."
Munger, who was the state GOP's biggest donor at one point, is actively involved in the California fight and is researching other efforts to fight gerrymandering nationwide, this person said. The state Democratic and Republican parties, which rarely agree on anything, agreed in 2010 when they opposed the ballot measure. Now, Democrats, who would likely gain seats if the districts are redrawn by state lawmakers, support a mid-decade redistricting, while the state GOP, which would likely lose seats, says the state should continue having lines drawn by the independent commission once every decade.
"It's a shame that Governor Newsom and the radical Left in Sacramento are willing to spend $200 million on a statewide special election, while running a deficit of $20 billion, in order to silence the opposition in our state," the GOP congressional delegation said in a statement on Friday. "As a Delegation we will fight any attempt to disenfranchise California voters by whatever means necessary to ensure the will of the people continues to be reflected in redistricting and in our elections."
What happens next? If Democrats in California move forward with their proposal, which is dependent on what Texas lawmakers do during their special legislative session that began last week, they have two options:
• State lawmakers could vote to put the measure before voters in a special election that would likely be held in November — a costly prospect. The last statewide special election — the unsuccessful effort to recall Newsom in 2021 — cost more than $200 million, according to the secretary of state's office.
• The Legislature could also vote to redraw the maps, but this option would likely be more vulnerable to legal challenge. Either scenario is expected to be voted on as an urgency item, which requires a 2/3 vote but would insulate the action from being the subject of a referendum later put in front of voters that would delay enactment. The Legislature is out of session until mid-August.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Bernie Sanders urges US Republicans to oppose military funding for Israel
US Senator Bernie Sanders said that '60 percent of Americans oppose Netanyahu's barbaric war against the Palestinian people', and called on Republicans to oppose funding for Israel's war on Gaza. 'We're making progress in moving Democrats to vote against funding this war. Now it's time to move Republicans. Does the average Republican want to spend billions starving children? I don't think so," he said in a post on X.
Arabian Post
5 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Trump's Tariff War Creates De Facto Counter-Axis Driven By Common Cause
By K Raveendran Donald Trump's aggressive tariff regime, launched under the guise of bolstering American strength and reclaiming lost economic ground, has triggered a worldwide response that may ultimately defeat the very goal it seeks to achieve. Framed as a nationalist project to assert America's economic primacy, the tariff war has turned out to be a catalyst for an accelerating global shift away from unipolar US dominance toward a truly multipolar world order. What was once largely speculative—the idea of a global economic architecture not centred on Washington—is now becoming tangible as Trump's trade brinkmanship compels other nations to rethink, regroup, and realign. The essential flaw in Trump's strategy lies in its assumption that the rest of the world would blink first, caving in to American demands under the weight of economic pressure. But the world hasn't blinked. Instead, countries are finding common cause in resisting what they perceive as economic coercion masquerading as negotiation. The result is a fluid yet increasingly coherent realignment of powers—chief among them China, Russia, and India—that is beginning to operate as a de facto counter-axis to the United States. Driven by shared grievances and the common objective of shielding their strategic autonomy, these nations are cooperating more closely in trade, investment, and energy. The irony is that Trump's pursuit of economic supremacy is hastening the erosion of the very system that enabled US dominance for decades. Beijing, long a prime target of Trump's tariffs, has responded with both retaliation and redirection. Rather than capitulating to Washington's demands, China has expanded its outreach to other major economies, particularly in Asia and Africa, while deepening its engagement with Russia and India. The Belt and Road Initiative, initially conceived as a means of global infrastructure connectivity, is now also a tool for economic realignment. As Trump builds tariff walls, China builds roads, ports, and financial networks that bypass the United States. Moscow, for its part, has welcomed this pivot. Isolated by US and European sanctions, Russia sees opportunity in closer ties with China and India, both of which have shown increasing willingness to defy Western pressure. India, though traditionally more aligned with the West and an enthusiastic participant in global liberal markets, has found itself inching toward the emerging non-Western axis. Trump's tariffs on Indian goods, coupled with his administration's threats of secondary sanctions on countries trading with Russia or buying Iranian oil, have forced New Delhi to draw red lines. India's stance on Russian oil, for instance, has been unambiguous: it is a matter of national interest and energy security. Any effort by Washington to curtail these purchases is seen not just as economic interference but as a direct challenge to sovereign decision-making. In retaliation, India has dangled the cancellation of key defence deals, including the proposed purchase of the F-35 fighter jets—a symbolic snub that indicates a broader reassessment of strategic alignment. What makes this realignment especially potent is the breadth of its scope. It is not merely a matter of retaliatory tariffs or diplomatic rhetoric; it includes infrastructure cooperation, technological integration, and long-term investment planning. China and India, despite historic differences, have increased dialogue in recent months on trade facilitation and regional connectivity. Russia's role as a common energy partner and military supplier to both nations gives it leverage in the triangle. And with US credibility as a dependable trade partner being questioned, many smaller nations are also hedging their bets, diversifying their economic relations away from a US-centric model. Even traditional US allies in Europe are uneasy. Germany and France have voiced concerns about the destabilizing effects of Trump's tariffs on global trade norms. The EU is pursuing its own trade treaties with countries like Japan and Vietnam, carving out autonomous space in global commerce that doesn't necessarily involve Washington. At the heart of this geopolitical churn is a growing skepticism toward the idea that the United States can or should dictate the terms of global trade. The Trump administration's belief that economic might translates automatically into negotiating power has ignored the subtle but critical fact that globalisation has made nations more interconnected and interdependent. Trying to weaponise trade may yield short-term leverage, but it also creates lasting rifts and compels partners to seek alternatives. The economic structures of the 21st century no longer afford any single nation the luxury of acting as an economic autocrat without consequences. Furthermore, the economic impact within the United States is more complex and less flattering than the populist rhetoric suggests. While certain domestic industries may benefit from tariff protections, others are suffering from rising input costs and retaliatory measures. American farmers have been hit particularly hard by Chinese tariffs on agricultural imports, prompting the Trump administration to introduce multi-billion dollar bailout packages that, in effect, cancel out the supposed gains of the trade war. Manufacturing, far from being resurgent, is experiencing uncertainty and disruption due to volatility in global supply chains. The idea that tariff wars are 'easy to win' has proven to be one of the most misguided statements of Trump's presidency. Even American multinationals, once eager advocates of 'America First' policies, are quietly relocating parts of their supply chains to countries not caught in the tariff crossfire. This shift not only diminishes the US's leverage but also accelerates the decentralization of economic power. No longer is the American market an irresistible magnet for global commerce; it is increasingly seen as a zone of instability and risk. For many countries, the trade war has been a wake-up call—an impetus to invest in regional blocs, alternative trade corridors, and new financial instruments insulated from US influence. In the broader scheme, what Trump has unwittingly triggered is a reimagination of how global power is structured. The post-Cold War illusion of US-led globalisation is being replaced by a more pluralistic, competitive, and fragmented order. Emerging powers are no longer content to play by rules written in Washington. They are building parallel systems: China's digital yuan aims to reduce dependency on the dollar; India and Russia have revived rupee-rouble trade mechanisms; and regional trade agreements like RCEP are functioning without US participation. What's being born is a new kind of globalization—less hierarchical, more balanced, and far less dependent on any single country. (IPA Service)
UAE Moments
9 hours ago
- UAE Moments
CPB to Shut Down Post-Funding Cuts, Impacting Public Media
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to Close Operations Amid Federal Funding Cuts The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a pivotal supporter of NPR and PBS funding, announced significant changes after the loss of federal funding authorized by President Trump's administration. The nonprofit organization, responsible for channeling federal money to public media stations across the United States, confirmed it would wind down operations by September 30, 2025. Major Cuts Approved by Congress The decision to cease CPB operations follows a largely party-line vote approving a $9 billion rescission package requested by the White House. This package included $1.1 billion in cuts to public broadcasting through fiscal year 2027. Despite hopes among public media officials for funding restoration, the Senate Appropriations Committee declined to reconsider the allocation. Patricia de Stacy Harrison, President and CEO of CPB, expressed deep regret, stating, 'Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations. CPB remains committed to fulfilling responsibilities and supporting our partners through this transition with transparency and care.' Impact on Public Media Stations CPB plays an essential role in supporting public media nationwide. It provides critical funding for programming, educational initiatives, emergency alert systems, and cultural services vital to many communities. However, the consequences of its impending closure are already reverberating through the public media landscape: Many local stations, such as WQED in Pittsburgh, have begun laying off staff. WQED recently announced a 35% workforce reduction as a response to the cuts. Stations in cities like Nashville, Louisville, and Seattle are experiencing a surge in donations as communities rally to preserve local services. CPB confirmed most staff positions within the organization will be eliminated by the fiscal year-end. A small team will remain temporarily to oversee compliance, fiscal distributions, and long-term financial obligations. 'I didn't really see a day where this separate institution, which is set up to serve the public, would be shut down,' shared Tim Bruno, general manager of Radio Catskill, an NPR affiliate in upstate New York. Federal Funding and Public Media Operations NPR and PBS rely on federal funding in varying degrees. NPR's direct federal funding constitutes only a small portion of its budget, but its member stations — particularly those serving rural and underserved areas — depend significantly on CPB grants for their operating revenue. On average, PBS and its member stations derive 15% of their revenue from federal allocations, which support essential programs like PBS News Hour and children's programming such as 'Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood.' Public media advocates fear the broader implications of CPB's closure. Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR, emphasized its ripple effects, stating, 'The ripple effects of this closure will be felt across every public media organization and, more importantly, in every community across the country that relies on public broadcasting.' NPR has pledged to allocate $8 million from its budget to assist local stations facing financial crises. Public Broadcasting Under Political Scrutiny The funding cuts reflect longstanding criticism of public media by some conservatives, including allegations of bias and mismanagement of taxpayer money. NPR and PBS strongly deny these accusations, defending their commitment to fair and independent journalism. Nevertheless, public sentiment largely favors preserving federal support for public broadcasting. A Harris Poll conducted last month revealed broad support for public media among Americans. Approximately 66% of respondents supported federal funding for public radio, with bipartisan backing — 58% of Republicans and 77% of Democrats agreed that public broadcasting is a good value for taxpayers. Public Reaction and Efforts to Adapt As federal funding diminishes, public media organizations are working to adapt and maintain services. NPR has vowed to strengthen efforts supporting locally owned and nonprofit radio stations. Additionally, it seeks to uphold high standards in independent journalism and cultural programming to serve the nation's diverse communities.
