Gavin Newsom teased a redistricting fight with Texas. Can he even do that?
Newsom began making comments last week after Abbott announced plans for the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature to draw new congressional maps in a special legislative session. Texas, like other states, redrew its maps after the 2020 census. New map-drawing normally wouldn't happen until the next census in 2030 absent a successful lawsuit forcing a state to redo them. But the New York Times has reported Trump's political advisers are pushing for Texas to redraw its maps ahead of the midterms to be more favorable to Republicans.
The California Legislature, where Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers, 'could gerrymander like no other state,' Newsom told liberal news outlet the Tennessee Holler in an interview that published Thursday, referring to the practice of redrawing districts to favor a certain political party.
'I saw what Gov. Abbott did today … These guys are not f---ing around,' Newsom said. 'They're playing by a different set of rules … We've been playing fair but it made me question that entire program. These guys are going to do everything in their power to maintain their power.'
Newsom added that it's imperative for his party to take back control of the House of Representatives. Currently, Republicans hold 220 seats in the House compared to Democrats' 212, a number that shrunk in recent months after three Democrats died in office, leaving vacancies. But that majority will be tough for the GOP to hold in the midterms, when a president's party typically has trouble holding onto seats.
Newsom has become more aggressively political in recent weeks. After trying to play nice with Trump in the first months of his second presidency, Newsom abandoned those efforts last month when the president deployed National Guard troops to the streets of Los Angeles in response to protests. Since then, he has given a primetime address accusing Trump of assaulting democracy; launched a social media onslaught against the president and other Republican officials; and gone on a tour through parts of South Carolina he billed as an effort to challenge the GOP on its home turf.
In a post where he included a video of his comments to the Holler, Newsom wrote: 'Texas is using a special session about emergency disaster aid to redistrict their state and cheat their way into more Congressional seats. These guys have no shame. CA is watching — and you can bet we won't stand idly by.'
But California's laws constrain Newsom from responding in kind to any efforts in Texas to redraw maps to favor Republicans. Voters in California took that power from the state Legislature in 2008 and handed it to an independent redistricting commission, which draws the lines for California's congressional and state legislative districts. Though Newsom is correct that Democrats dominate the Legislature, they do not dominate the redistricting commission. By law, the commission comprises five Democrats, five Republicans and four commissioners not affiliated with either party.
Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College who serves as one of the Democratic commissioners, said the governor doesn't have any power over the commission's activities and can't force it to draw new maps in Democrats' favor.
'In this national context, I can understand the governor's inclination to want to retaliate,' she said. 'However the people of California have made it clear at the ballot that the governor does not have that power.'
California's system is somewhat unusual — in most states, the parties can wield significant influence over the redistricting process, especially in places where one party controls state government.
'I certainly understand and recognize that the balance of power hinges on redistricting, and when all states are not playing fair, the fact that California does puts Democrats at a disadvantage,' Sadhwani said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DC Council partially funds ranked choice voting, falls short of full implementation
The Brief D.C. council voted to partially fund a ranked choice voting measure, supported by 73% of D.C. residents. The initiative has not passed yet; however, the Council is headed towards approving it ahead of the 2026 election season. The council is expected to meet again in August to further discuss implementation options. WASHINGTON - The D.C. council voted to partially fund Initiative 83, which includes ranked choice voting, but fell short of fully implementing it on Monday afternoon. What we know In ranked choice voting, voters can rank candidates in order of preference, rather than choose one. If passed, the initiative would take effect in time for the 2026 election, so voters can rank mayoral candidates regardless of party affiliation, and rank their preferred candidate at number one. Why you should care D.C. is a diverse city with a not-so-diverse voting population. In a 2024 poll, 92% of registered voters were Democrats, and 6% were Republicans. With ranked choice voting, voters can rank Democrats rather than just pick one. What they're saying DC Shadow Representative, Oye Owolewa, says he appreciates the council for "hearing the voices of the people" and for the initial funding of ranked choice voting. "As someone who fights for DC's full democracy on the national stage, I'm encouraged to see progress at home," Owolewa says. The Source Information in this story comes from U.S. Representative Oye Owolewa's press release.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Albanese Walks Fine Line Between Xi, Trump in China
00:00 HAIDI: THE AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER IS SET TO MEET WITH HAIDI: THE AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER IS SET TO MEET WITH CHINESE PRESIDENT XI JINPING LATER TODAY IN BEIJING. IT COMES AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TARIFFS THREATS. ALBANESE WOULD NEED TO WALK A FINE LINE BETWEEN AUSTRALIA'S BIGGEST TRADING PARTNER AND MOST IMPORTANT LONG-TERM SECURITY ALLY. THE THING ABOUT CHINA AND AUSTRALIA IS SO IMPORTANT IS WE BUILD PEOPLE TO PEOPLE RELATIONS. WE DO THAT THROUGH THE PARTICIPATION OF AUSTRALIANS HERE. I HAVE BROUGHT WITH ME A WHOLE RANGE OF BUSINESS PEOPLE FROM THE RESOURCES SECTOR, THE TOURISM SECTOR AND THE EDUCATION SECTOR. LET'S GET IT MORE WHEN IT COMES TO THE EXPECTATIONS FROM THE PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT FROM CHINA. GOOD TO HAVE YOU WITH US. WE HAVE SEEN RELATIONS IMPROVE MARKEDLY COMPARED TO JUST A FEW YEARS AGO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE DEMANDS WHEN IT COMES TO DIPLOMATIC FINESSE AND BALANCE ARE MORE CHALLENGING THAN EVER. HOW FINE IS THE LINE THAT THE PRIME MINISTER HAS TO TREAD ON THIS VISIT GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF DIPLOMATIC DEPTH REQUIRED? IT'S A VERY FINE LINE BUT AT THE SAME TIME THIS VISIT IS HAPPENING IN A CONTEXT WHERE BOTH SIDES WANT A SUCCESSFUL VISIT. THE CHAOS OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS GIVING BEIJING AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY THE CON LEADER AND WELCOME AUSTRALIA AFTER A FEW YEARS OF RELATIONSHIP TURMOIL. THE EMPHASIS IS ON ECONOMICS AND JOBS. THE AGENDA IS VERY MUCH ENABLED BY A STRONG TRADING RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA. SO I THINK BOTH SIDES WANT TO ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE ALBEIT IN THE CONTEXT OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES ON OTHER ISSUES. HOW THORNY ARE SOME OF THE REGIONAL GEOPOLITICAL ISSUES BE AT ANY SORT OF CLARIFICATION ON CANBERRA'S POSITIONING ON TAIWAN, WHICH THE PRIME MINISTER DID GIVE, BUT ALSO CONCERNS OVER WHAT WAS VIEWED AS BEIJING'S OVERREACH IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA , THE PACIFIC AND SOME OF THE ISLANDS. AS YOU SAY, THERE ARE A RANGE OF ISSUES. WE HAVE SEEN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PUT PRESSURE ON AUSTRALIA TO CLARIFY ITS POSITION ON TAIWAN AND THE PRIME MINISTER AND OTHER POLITICAL LEADERS HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF BATTING THAT ONE AWAY AND REITERATING THE POSITION THAT IT SUPPORTS THE STATUS QUO AND WILL NOT ENTERTAIN HYPOTHETICALS THAT IS A REASONABLE POSITION EVERYONE WOULD EXPECT. ON BROADER GEOPOLITICAL ISSUES, BOTH SIDES HAVE THEIR POSITIONS. THEY ARE WELL UNDERSTOOD AND WILL BE RAISED BUT I DON'T EXPECT THEY WILL BE A MAJOR SOURCE OF IRRITATION. MORE LIKELY IS THAT SPECIFIC BILATERAL DISPUTES THE COUNTRIES HAVE, LIKE THE DARWIN PORT LEASE, WHICH THE PRIME MINISTER PROMISED TO CANCEL MY CAUSE MORE IRRITATION WHEN THE LEADERS MEET. WHAT YOU SEE IN A SHIFTING IN POSITION? IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT BOTH WANT TO HAVE A POSITIVE TRIP AS WELL. BOTH SIDES UNDERSTAND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO VENTILATE THEIR GRIEVANCES. THERE'S AN EXPECTATION AMONG THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA THAT WE WILL RAISE SOME OF OUR DISPUTES. THE PLIGHT OF A DEMOCRACY ACTIVIST WHO IS IN JAIL IN CHINA, OUR CONCERN ABOUT CHINA'S MILITARY BUILDUP AND THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. SO THESE THINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SAID. BUT IS THERE AN EXPECTATION THAT AUSTRALIA CAN MOVE CHINA ON THESE ISSUES? PROBABLY NOT. AND SO BOTH SIDES WILL GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS ON THESE DISPUTES BUT TRY TO SHIFT THINGS TO A POSITIVE AGENDA AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. ONE THING THAT WILL ALSO COME UP IS ON THE ECONOMIC SIDE. WE HAVE SEEN SOME MOU'S ORDEALS BEING SIGNED BUT THERE IS THE KEY STICKING POINT OF CHINA WANTING MORE ACCESS TO THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY THAT MAY CANBERRA IS ALSO NOT WILLING TO HAND OVER. THIS IS A REALLY INTERESTING EVOLUTION IN THE ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE FOR A LONG TIME AUSTRALIA WAS ABLE TO ENJOY WHAT I WOULD CALL ARM'S-LENGTH TRADE WITH CHINA. WE CAN SELL RESOURCES AND FOOD. BUT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT VERY INTIMATE. THEY DON'T INVOLVE AN ONGOING RELATIONSHIP. WHAT CHINA WANTS IS MORE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN CHINA'S AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA SAY THAT PERHAPS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BEING LOOTED IN THE FREE TRADE -- BEING INCLUDED IN THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT. THIS BRINGS BACK MEMORIES OF CHUCK -- OF US TRULY BEING THE FIRST COMPANY TO BAN HUAWEI. WE ARE NOT VERY TRUSTING OF CHINA'S TECHNOLOGY AND PREFER TO KEEP SENSITIVE INVESTMENTS IN MINERALS OUT OF CHINESE CONTROL AS WELL FOR A WHOLE HOST OF REASONS AND I THINK THAT IS THE REAL STICKING POINT, THAT DESIRE FOR A MORE INTIMATE ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP AND A TIGHTER EMBRACE FROM BEIJING THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY LEAD TO MORE INFLUENCE DOWN THE TRACK. WE HAVE SEEN COMMENTS ABOUT THIS. DO YOU THINK THE STRATEGIC ISSUE OF RARE EARTHS, AUSTRALIA'S OPPORTUNITY AND THE STRANGLEHOLD IS LIKELY TO BECOME A CONTENTIOUS BILATERAL ISSUE? IT IS HARD TO SAY WITH CERTAINTY. AUSTRALIA HAS GOT SIGNIFICANT INTEREST IN DEVELOPING PROCESSING CAPACITY AND SEES A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FRIEND-SHORING INITIATIVE OF THE U.S. AND OTHER PARTNERS. AT THE SAME TIME WE DO NEED U.S. TECHNOLOGY AND THEY REMAIN THE WORLD LEADER. SO THERE ARE BOTH OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS IN THIS SECTOR. I DON'T EXPECT THIS TO PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THIS PARTICULAR MEETING BUT IT WILL BE AN ONGOING IRRITANT AND ALSO SOURCE OF POTENTIAL GROWTH INTO THE FUTURE. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. THAT WAS DARREN, A SENIOR LECTURER IN THE SCHOOL OF POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AT AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY. WE WILL HAVE MORE ON AUSTRALIA AHEAD EVERY TUESDAY AT 10:40 A.M. IN SYDNEY, 8:40 A.M. IN HONG KONG. YOU CAN TUNE INTO THE BLOOMBERG AUSTRALIA PODCAST, WHICH TELLS INTO THE BIGGEST STORIES.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
EU Targets Bourbon, Cars, Boeing in Countermeasures List
00:00 The European Union has finalized a list of counter measures to target U.S. goods worth €72 billion, including cars, Bourbon and Boeing aircraft. The measures represent the EU's response to President Trump's earlier so-called reciprocal tariffs. Bloomberg's demand news director, Charles Manson, is here with the details. Ross, what do we know then about the EU's countermeasures? Well, as you were saying, though, finalize this list of countermeasures. This is actually cut down from the initial list, which was over €90 billion. But it does include some essential items, including targeting Boeing, particularly the aircraft side, but then everything from medical equipment to plastics to agricultural equipment to musical equipment. It doesn't include military equipment, which should not be subject to any tariffs from the EU. But it is about sending a message to the U.S. that the European Union is prepared with very specific measures targeting certain U.S. goods in the event that this all disintegrates and there isn't a deal before the 1st of August. And some of these items that they're targeting very much with with an eye to the US midterm elections, even you're thinking about bourbon. Some of the states where bourbon comes from in the U.S., can they be key states in the US midterm elections for those companies and therefore for Republican politicians as well? And the message in all of this is that the EU wants to keep negotiating. Certainly we're seeing that happen. The impetus is to try and get a deal. They do want to avoid a broader trade conflict with the US. Certainly European companies want to avoid a broader trade conflict with the US. However, they're warning the US we are prepared. We have a specific list of things we're going to enact if we have to. We need to have all options on the table. What are the current expectations, Roz, that maybe there is a deal by August the first between the EU and between Washington? Well, the climate's become a bit trickier because Donald Trump keeps referring, excuse me, to his letters as deals. These are not deals. This is the US imposing a tariff rate on countries or blocs including the EU, and negotiating in that climate is quite difficult because you're trying to address very complex issues, not just tariffs, but non-tariff barriers that are seen as existing to trade, very complex conversations going on about sectors for the EU, steel, aluminum, cars, you name it. And so you need to have a bit of a climate of trust going on there. I mean, Donald Trump said yesterday he's willing to keep talking with the EU. Certainly, we know that the chief negotiator was on the phone last night with the US commerce secretary. So those conversations are going on, but they're getting to a deadline now of August the first. That's the fresh deadline and there's a lot it seems to wade through. And so the EU is quite wisely saying, well, we have to have a lot of issues in our back pocket, including these potential countermeasures.
