Record number of US Democrats vote to block offensive weapons transfers to Israel
But for the very first time, a majority of the Democrats and two Independent allies supported the resolutions to block the sale of $675m in bombs and guidance kits, as well as the shipment of 20,000 assault rifles. There are a total of 45 Democrats in the Senate - plus two Independents aligned with them.
The tally came to 73 to 24 on the first vote, and 70 to 27 on the second.
There are 100 members in the Senate. All Republicans voted against the resolutions.
Both were brought forward by Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who also pushed for a similar vote back in April. At the time, he only managed to get 15 Democrats on board.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
'The United States has provided more than $22b for Israel's military operations since this war began," Sanders told the chamber ahead of the vote, citing the figure calculated by the Costs of War project at Brown University.
"If you want to obey the law, vote for these resolutions," he said, pointing to the US Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act, which stipulate that parties involved in human rights abuses cannot receive US weapons.
"Enough is enough. Americans want this to end. They do not want to be complicit in an unfolding famine and deadly civilian massacres."
Washington, he indicated, is far behind its allies in moving toward a resolution in the region.
'France and Canada have said that they will recognise a Palestinian state. The United Kingdom has said it will do so as well if Israel does not immediately end this war and surge humanitarian aid," Sanders said on the Senate floor. "And at the UN last month, 149 countries voted for a ceasefire resolution condemning the use of starvation as a weapon of war and demanding an end to Israel's blockade on humanitarian aid.'
Unlikely allies
Each US state is represented by two senators. In the cases of Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont, all of their senators voted to back at least one resolution: to prohibit the sale of automatic assault rifles.
"These weapons would likely have been allocated to police forces under the control of Itamar Ben-Gvir," Georgia's youngest and first-ever Jewish senator, Jon Ossoff, said in a statement, referring to Israel's far-right national security minister who was condemned by the Biden administration.
Former Gaza contractor says Israeli soldiers were ready to shoot starving children Read More »
Ossoff did not, however, vote to block the sale of taxpayer-funded 1,000-pound bombs to Israel.
"Despite my opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu's conduct of the war in Gaza, I believe the United States must continue to support the Israeli people who face the persistent threat of rocket and missile attack and have been subjected to intense aerial bombardment from Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen," he said.
"Israel's capacity to strike those who would launch missiles and rockets at Israeli civilians depends upon the deterrence provided by the Israeli Air Force."
The most notable vote of support for both resolutions came from Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, who has not previously backed any such actions, and has been a longtime pro-Israel voice.
Her decision appeared to have made way for other less-inclined Democrats to join in.
"It is clear that the Government of Israel has not conducted its military operations in Gaza with the necessary care required by international humanitarian law," Shaheen said in a statement. "It is also clear that the Government of Israel has failed to allow adequate humanitarian assistance into Gaza, resulting in unbelievable suffering."
On Thursday, the official account for Senate Republicans on X issued only this: "President Trump is correct. The only thing standing in the way of peace is Hamas, which started this war and still refuses to surrender or release the remaining hostages."
Hamas has said there can be no ceasefire without the entry of sustained, adequate aid via international and trusted entities like the United Nations, and it has also said it would commit to a deal that includes a permanent end to the war, not a temporary truce.
Last week, both the US and Israel abruptly withdrew their negotiating teams from Doha, Qatar, with President Donald Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff suggesting the consideration of "alternative options" for Gaza. It was unclear if he meant a pivot away from diplomacy.
Israel has killed over 60,000 Palestinians since 7 October 2023. Most are women and children.
Shifting view of Israel
A shift in attitudes in the US is palpable, given that the largest turnout for a Democratic mayoral primary in New York City history last month was largely due to a first-time candidate who was vocal in his support for Palestinian rights.
"The tide is turning. The American people do not want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza," Sanders said after the votes were tallied on Wednesday. "The Democrats are moving forward on this issue, and I look forward to Republican support in the near future."
Nationwide polling has also captured this shift.
In a dramatic 10 percentage point drop since a poll from September 2024, only 32 percent of Americans said they support Israel's war on Gaza, Gallup polling results released earlier this week showed.
As of July 2025, 60 percent of Americans said they disapprove of Israel's military actions, and 52 percent said they see Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a negative light.
The numbers were mainly driven by Democrats and Independents, Gallup said.
Among Democrats distinctly, only eight percent of respondents said they approved of Israel's military action. Among Independents, that figure rose to 25 percent.
Most Americans do not support Israel's war on Gaza, polling shows Read More »
Among Republicans, 71 percent of respondents said they approved of what Israel was doing in Gaza.
But that's not the full story.
Among Trump's most loyal, outspoken, and influential supporters inside and outside of Congress, there has been a rise in aggressive questioning of why the US bankrolls a foreign country to the tune of billions of dollars each year, when that amount could be used for initiatives at home.
Earlier this month, hardline America First Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene voted alongside progressive Democrats Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar to strip Israel of $500m in US funding, hours after it bombed the Holy Family Catholic Church in Gaza.
The amendment they voted for failed to pass.
"Here in America, we're $37 trillion in debt. My amendment will ensure an America First department of defence, and that is exactly what we need," Greene said.
On Thursday, she took that position further in a remarkable statement for its deviation from standard Republican policy.
"Yesterday, I spoke to a Christian pastor from Gaza. There are children starving," Greene wrote on X.
"Are innocent Israeli lives more valuable than innocent Palestinian and Christian lives? And why should America continue funding this?" she added. "None of this is antisemitic and I, along with millions of Americans, refuse that manipulative label."
She is not alone.
Last month, ahead of US air strikes on Iran, Greene's former colleague in the House of Representatives, Matt Gaetz, questioned the Trump administration's motives vis-a-vis Israel.
"This war isn't about Iran's nuclear weapons for Israel, it is about one thing: regime change... Does America really want to be Israel's dance partner to this siren song?" he asked on his new TV programme on the One America Network.
Tucker Carlson, a former Fox News pundit who voted for Trump, has featured a string of guests on his independent online show questioning the US-Israel relationship and why pro-Israel lobbying groups are allowed to have so much influence on US elections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Does Trump care about the issue of Palestinian statehood?
The US president's sentiments on Palestinian statehood have shifted significantly over the past week, as three of his G7 allies proclaimed they would recognise the State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September. French President Emmanuel Macron's somewhat sudden announcement on X came first, to which Donald Trump - prompted by a reporter - said nonchalantly, "That's fine if he does that. It's up to him. I'm with the United States, I'm not with France". On Monday, just hours after a sit-down with Trump in Scotland, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that he too would recognise a Palestinian state in September. "I'm not in that camp... if you do that, you really are rewarding Hamas," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. By Wednesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney had joined the UK and France, as all three parties argued that this was the only pathway to ending the 77-year-old Israel-Palestine conflict and the war on Gaza. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh' [sic] Canada!" Trump wrote on his TruthSocial account. He then raised tariffs on Canadian products from 25 percent to 35 percent. Is Trump just feeling the isolation of now having nearly 150 countries - many of them US allies - recognise that Palestinians are entitled to a state, or are others in his close circle driving his policy for him? Why Trump has little interest in delivering a ceasefire in Gaza Read More » "I think that Trump was caught flat-footed initially, and so he was just dismissive, and anything that's not an initiative that he would take, or any action or comment that doesn't turn the attention to him and give him the impression that he is the master of whatever issue is under discussion, he will viscerally reject or oppose," Glenn Carle, a national security expert who spent 25 years in the CIA's clandestine services, told Middle East Eye. "Once matters had evolved a little, he started to think, well, this could create some headaches for me," he added. "The bureaucracies weighed in to the extent they remain capable and relevant. That would be the State Department largely saying, 'Well, this is fraught'." Indeed, US Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio has been leading the administration's official messaging on the matter. Rubio had been a staunch pro-Israel voice during his years in the Senate. "Irrelevant. It's irrelevant," he said of the recognition of Palestinian statehood on Fox Radio on Thursday. "The UK is like, well, if Israel doesn't agree to a ceasefire by September, we're going to recognise a Palestinian state. So if I'm Hamas, I say, you know what, let's not allow there to be a ceasefire. If Hamas refuses to agree to a ceasefire, it guarantees a Palestinian state will be recognised by all these countries in September," Rubio said in the radio appearance. 'Trump's not in control' A ceasefire that was in effect for six weeks in January - brokered by the Biden administration and enforced by the Trump administration - was broken by Israel on 1 March. Since then, Hamas has insisted that a full restoration of UN aid distribution and a permanent end to the war are the only two conditions it would accept for another deal with Israel. 'Trump's not in control. I think we need to take a look at the first three months of Trump's presidency, and then we need to compare that to the last four or five months,' Abdelhalim Abdelrahman, a political analyst and host of the podcast Uncharted Territory, told MEE. Abdelrahman says that in the first three months, Trump managed to negotiate a successful ceasefire with the Houthi rebels, diplomacy with the Iranians, and his envoy Steve Witkoff managed to twist Netanyahu's arm into accepting a ceasefire. 'If you look at who Trump has surrounded himself with, there's no doubt who's guiding his Middle East policy' - Abdelhalim Abdelrahman, host of Uncharted Territory "I know that Senator Lindsey Graham has been in the president's ear, pushing back against this. Mark Levin, who's a host at Fox [News], who was really pushing Trump to bomb Iran, has also been pushing back on this." There's also the Heritage Foundation, a highly influential right-wing, Evangelical Christian think tank in Washington that was key to formulating Trump's playbook for both his terms in office. The organisation celebrated this achievement back in 2018, and has undoubtedly seen more of its recommendations go into action now with the doxxing, firing, and deportation of students and faculty who took part in pro-Palestine protests last year. At a Thursday event in the US capital hosted by Heritage, speakers included the US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and the chairman of the scandal-plagued Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, Johnnie Moore. Organisers pledged to help Israel annex Judea and Samaria, otherwise known as the occupied West Bank, and never once mentioned the word Palestine or Palestinians during the 90-minute discussion. Moore in particular referred to them as the "Arabs of Gaza". "The Heritage Foundation has very much been peddling this idea that A, Palestinians are not indigenous to the land, and B, that the Trump administration should take just about every pro-Israel avenue that they possibly can," Abdelrahman said. "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people," to the Evangelical Christian community to which officials like Huckabee and groups like Heritage belong, Carle said. Is the two-state policy dead in the US? Washington adopted the policy of two states, Israel and Palestine, at the signing of the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel. It became official at the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords in the White House Rose Garden. No administration has officially, on paper, overturned that policy since, but now more than ever, no government action even remotely suggests that it remains in effect. "The two-state policy is undoubtedly dead," Abdelrahman said. Carle said that US policy now effectively only serves the objectives of the Israeli right-wing, its current government run by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party. US calls Saudi and French-led conference on two-state solution a 'publicity stunt' Read More » "It used to be a pretty clear majority of Israelis who favoured a two-state solution and opposed the colonisation of the West Bank," Carle said, but the numbers have dwindled. Just one week ago, the Knesset voted 71-13 on a non-binding motion to annex the occupied West Bank. "The Trump administration has never taken any steps towards a two-state solution. The Biden administration was quite a classic American one, in that it did want a two-state solution, but was feeling caught between the contradiction of supporting Israel's existential existence, which then meant that the US never pushed Israel," Carle said. In a move that the State Department insisted is unrelated to the momentum building around Palestinian statehood, the Trump administration on Thursday placed sanctions on officials in the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) over their work taking Israel to international courts. The unnamed officials were "not complying with their commitments and undermining the prospects for peace", the State Department said. "Ironically enough, the PLO de-armed about 40 years ago, and has recognised Israel's right to exist, has abided by the Oslo security apparatus, and has just done about everything to appease the United States," Abdelrahman noted. Efforts by US lawmakers Also on Thursday, Jewish Insider revealed that California Congressman Ro Khanna, a progressive Democrat, had begun circulating a draft letter among colleagues, calling on Trump to recognise Palestinian statehood. The US must " recognise the need to meaningfully address the decades-long conflict and injustice underlying these 22 months of horrific war", the letter read. "With such an outcome opposed by the current Israeli government and actively undermined by its accelerating annexation campaign in the West Bank - as well as open calls by Israeli ministers to annex much if not all of Gaza - meaningful action is necessary to bolster the legitimacy of Palestinian statehood," the letter concluded. At the time when it was obtained, there were no signatures added to the letter yet. Khanna quickly shared the article on his X account and insisted that its revelation hampers discussions with the White House. "Someone leaked our effort to try to sabotage it. Sad. It won't work," he wrote. "Recognising a Palestinian state is an idea whose time has come. The response of my colleagues has been overwhelming. We will build support and release prior to the UN convening," he added. Abdelrahman told MEE it's likely "going to be nipped in the bud", at least until Republicans gauge where public sentiment is after the 2026 midterm elections for lawmakers. More and more young America Firsters have questioned US loyalty to Israel's objectives over the past several weeks, highlighting a split among Trump's most ardent supporters. And even if all the other G7 countries recognise Palestinian statehood, there won't be much of an effect anyway, Carle argues. "I think the reality is that there are only two countries that can really affect Israel's foreign policy. One is Israel, and the other is the United States".
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Why are people protesting against the Boston Consulting Group?
In San Francisco, Boston, Dallas and other cities around the country, protesters have marched and chanted outside the offices of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). The demonstrators were demanding accountability for BCG's role in creating a deadly new aid distribution system backed by the US and Israel that a United Nations official described as using starvation as a bargaining chip. Founded in 1961 and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, BCG is one of the most prominent consulting firms in the United States and advises clients on a large number of topics, including security and humanitarian issues. BCG is one of the world's three largest management consulting firms by revenue and is no stranger to controversy. It has been reported to have worked with Isabel dos Santos, who was accused of exploiting Angola's natural resources. It is also reported to have been one of the firm's "critical" in helping Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman consolidate his grip on power in the kingdom. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Middle East Eye examines the BCG's role in Gaza's humanitarian crisis and efforts to hold the consulting firm accountable. Collaboration with Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Between October 2024 and May 2025, BCG helped establish the controversial US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The GHF began to invite increased scrutiny in early June as evidence of massacres at GHF aid sites emerged, prompting BCG to cancel its contracts with GHF and describe their previous cooperation as 'unapproved'. 'Two former partners initiated this work, even though the lead partner was categorically told not to. This work was not a BCG project. It was orchestrated and run secretly outside any BCG scope or approvals. We fully disavow this work. BCG was not paid for any of this work,' BCG wrote on their website. But a Financial Times (FT) investigation revealed that BCG's cooperation with the GHF was extensive and discussed with senior BCG figures, while the Washington Post's reporting showed that BCG was filing monthly invoices of over $1m a month. The FT investigation found that BCG was originally contacted by Orbis, an American security company working on behalf of an Israeli think tank, to do a feasibility study for a new Gaza aid operation. Senior partners at BCG 'step down over Gaza humanitarian controversy' Read More » BCG then helped create Safe Reach Solutions (SRS), a mercenary firm that would provide security at aid sites, along with GHF. At one point, SRS reportedly chastised a contractor under its command for refusing to shoot Palestinian children. GHF's executive director resigned hours before GHF's public launch in May, claiming it was impossible to implement GHF's Gaza aid plan 'while also strictly adhering to humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence'. UN aid chief Tom Fletcher also criticised the GHF, describing it as 'a fig leaf for further violence and displacement'. BCG planned to bill GHF around $4m for work that included developing financial models of what the UN described as 'ethnic cleansing' in Gaza. The model included 'voluntary relocation', where Palestinians in Gaza would have been given $5,000, rent subsidies for four years and subsidised food for a year. The model predicted that a quarter of the population would leave, and three-fourths of them would never return, according to FT. As Israeli air strikes indiscriminately kill Palestinians and children starve to death under Israel's suffocating siege, such an offer could hardly be considered voluntary and was widely condemned by rights groups. Why is the GHF controversial? Set up to bypass UN aid distribution networks that have been in place for decades, but that Israel alleges are now linked to Hamas, GHF sites have proven deadly for Palestinians seeking aid. Israeli soldiers have admitted to deliberately killing unarmed Palestinian aid seekers at GHF distribution sites, with one Israeli soldier describing the aid centres as 'killing fields'. Over a thousand Palestinian aid-seekers have been killed, mostly at GHF sites, since May, according to the UN. Yet as malnutrition spreads across Gaza, hungry Palestinians have little choice but to brave Israeli bullets to search for aid. Israel alleges that violence at the aid sites is necessary to stop the aid from being stolen by Hamas. However, an internal US review examined 156 instances of stolen or lost aid and found no evidence that Hamas was stealing it. Rather, Israel directly or indirectly caused the loss or theft of aid in 44 instances, according to the findings. Meanwhile, Israel has admitted that it supports anti-Hamas gangs notorious for stealing aid. How other aid organisations reacted to BCG On 13 June, Save the Children International became the first charity to pause cooperation with BCG over its role in the GHF. Save the Children CEO Inger Ashing said BCG's modelling of a plan for the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza 'disregards fundamental rights and dignity, and raises serious ethical and legal questions' - and that Save the Children would suspend work with BCG pending the outcome of an external investigation. Several days later, BCG's chief risk officer and the leader of its social-impact practice resigned from their roles. Yet despite the international outcry against GHF, some humanitarian aid organisations have been hesitant to cut ties with GHF. Although the World Food Programme told The New Humanitarian that it planned to review its ties with BCG, other humanitarian aid organisations, including some that decried the GHF, did not indicate that they were considering ending their relationship with BCG. What protests have there been against BCG? Some protesters have found BCG, with dozens of locations across the US, an accessible target to protest against the killing of aid seekers in Gaza. On 25 July, demonstrators banged pots and pans outside BCG's headquarters in the Seaport district of Boston. GHF chief attacks UN and media, avoids saying 'Palestinians' when referring to Gaza Read More » A security guard at the building seriously injured one protester when he pushed the protester into a metal pole, breaking several ribs. 'Very quickly, a security guard ran from within the building without me noticing him, and slammed into me and pushed me away from the door with all his strength,' the protester, who asked to remain anonymous, told Middle East Eye. Multiple witnesses corroborated the account, and the protester was later taken by ambulance to a hospital with a trauma centre. On 25 July, at least a dozen protesters were arrested when demonstrators staged a sit-in at a BCG facility in Dallas. Protesters also demonstrated outside a BCG office in Dallas on Thursday. On the west coast of the United States, the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) organised protests outside of BCG's offices in San Francisco and San Diego. 'The time to act is now! The genocide in Gaza had reached a critical moment with thousands facing starvation due to the brutal siege on the strip… we will make ourselves heard,' a statement from the San Diego chapter of PYM said.
Gulf Today
4 hours ago
- Gulf Today
How California draws congressional districts
Seema Mehta, 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.
