This is the future kids want
Earlier this year, I went to Career Day at my older kid's school. The experience was sometimes humbling — at an elementary school career fair, no one can compete with the firefighters — but it was also incredibly joyful. Hearing from kids about what they want to be when they grow up can be a balm for anxious times.
Adults may be fearful for the future, kids are still dreaming and planning, figuring out the place they're going to inhabit in a world that's constantly changing. Yes, kids today will come of age in a time of climate change, war, and democratic backsliding — but they're also going to create new art, invent new technologies, and pioneer new policies that will make the world better and richer in ways we can't even imagine yet.
With all this in mind, I asked a few kids — including some of the Scholastic Kid Reporters who have helped me out in the past — to tell me what they want to be when they grow up, and what changes they hope to see in the world. A selection of their responses, which have been condensed and edited, are below. If the kids in your life would like to weigh in too, you can reach me at anna.north@vox.com.
I want to be a gymnastics teacher. I want to get married and have kids, maybe five. I want to go to France. I want to do ballet in France.
I want to do anything I want. I want more kittens on the planet. I want everyone to have their own house with their own family. I want self-driving lawnmowers. I don't want people to eat chickens, who should be treated like a princess.
—Mairead, age 8
During Covid, our math and science teacher would show us these videos about space. Those videos really inspired me. The idea that there might be life other than planet Earth was just really cool to me. Our universe is so big, there's so many places to explore, so many new things to learn.
[As a Scholastic Kid Reporter, I wrote a story] about the total solar eclipse. I remember interviewing Mr. James Tralie. That was really cool, because he worked at NASA, but he was also an animator, and I also love art and drawing. From that experience, I learned being part of NASA and learning about space is not only about being a scientist or being an engineer, it's also about doing art, doing music, and just doing what you truly love related to space.
When I was younger, I loved playing with Legos. I love building new things. I've learned a lot about being an aerospace technician or an engineer: building rockets, fixing issues related to space technology. I also love exploring. So being an astronomer is one of my dreams.
I just don't think it makes sense that there's only one planet in our entire universe where there's life. I hope to find life on other planets in the future.
—Aiden, age 13
I want to be a teacher because I see in my class a lot of different faces and colors of everyone, and I think it's going to be important to help other people grow like I grow in my school.
In my class, I have people who are shy, people who need extra help, and people who are really smart, so I feel like getting education for everybody to reach the same [level] is going to be hard.
—Kimaaya, age 8
I would like to taxidermy a lamprey eel.
—Eleanor, age 6
Interviewing ukulelist James Hill as a Scholastic Kid Reporter and talking to him about music showed me that there are many different ways to play an instrument. On his ukulele, he doesn't just play a couple of chords — he makes creative musical sounds, even drumbeats. Talking with him inspired me to become a performer on the ukulele and guitar.
Not to brag, but I feel like I'm very skilled with ukulele. I feel like if someone gave me a sheet of music, I could learn it and play it for them maybe the next day perfectly.
My biggest goal is to experiment more with the notes and strings, learn some more tricks on it, and maybe someday make my own album.
—Owen, age 12
I want to do research in politics or economics that could bring about real changes in our world.
Growing up during the Covid pandemic, we were all stuck online. I was seeing a lot of stuff about the Black Lives Matter movement, lots of Instagram stuff about LGBT rights, there was the Trump administration, and it really got me curious about politics and social justice.
I'm from Hong Kong as well, and in 2019 there were the protests that occurred about democracy. I'm really obsessed with the idea of preserving democracy, so I think that just pushed me further into reading more about politics.
I think you could use the quantitative bit of economics and tie it into the qualitative bit of politics, and use data, like observing patterns and everything, and apply that to something that could cause change in the world. I think I would be studying politics and economics so that I could keep both doors open, depending on what I want to pursue in the future. Because I'm still 17. I'm not set yet, but I think both of these paths offer me the education, the knowledge to potentially bring impact.
—Macy, age 17
Watching the Olympics, hearing about doing archery, and seeing pictures [inspired me to want to be an Olympic archer]. Last year, I started saving up for an archery bow, and now I have one. We go to archery club every Sunday.
[I also want to be] a bat scientist. A few days ago, we went on a bat watch in the middle of the night. Have you heard of something called a bat detector? It's a little device, and it can intercept different kinds of bat calls with this little dial, and you turn it [to] different levels, and you can listen for bats. We were at this wood cabin, and there was a big light for the bugs, and the bats would quickly go for them. So we didn't really see them clearly, but we heard them very loud.
[I want to] study about bats: what they eat, what size they are, and where they like to go and everything.
—Flower, age 8
Your mom says you want to be an owl scientist. What makes you want to study owls?
They're so pretty.
What's your favorite owl?
Snow owl.
What do owls eat?
Mice, rabbits, bugs, bats. … If I have a pet owl, and Flower has a pet bat… [trails off]
—Tabby, age 4, Flower's sister
A 4-year-old girl came to the US legally in 2023 to get treatment for a severe medical condition called short bowel syndrome. Now her family's legal status has been terminated, and she could die without access to care.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will stop recommending routine Covid vaccines for healthy children, part of a series of policy changes that could mean kids can't access the shots, even if their families want them.
Kids with autism can be at heightened risk of drowning, and traditional swim classes aren't always accessible to them. Now some nonprofits are stepping in to help.
My older kid and I have been reading Hooky, a graphic novel about twin witches who miss the school bus one day and become embroiled in a variety of hijinks. Fair warning: Hooky was originally serialized and there is a lot going on. I have repeatedly had to admit to my kid that I am confused.
This week I was on one of my favorite parenting podcasts, The Longest Shortest Time, talking about my experience getting a salpingectomy, a form of permanent birth control that can reduce your risk of ovarian cancer. You can listen here!
Two weeks ago, I wrote about 'dry texting' and how teens use their phones to avoid in-person conflict with one another. Young people had a lot to tell me about this phenomenon, more than I could include in the original story. So I wanted to share what Gracelynn, age 12 and a Scholastic Kid Reporter, told me in an email:
Gracelynn said online arguments can be more complex than in-person confrontation because 'when you are chatting online, they could copy and paste the text or media image and use it against you.' With in-person arguments, it's also easier for adults to overhear and intervene. Gracelynn also noted that even though her school uses GoGuardian software to keep kids off certain websites during the day, 'they still manage to pull off crazy things.'
Thank you again to Gracelynn and everyone who talked to me for that story, and as always, you can reach me with comments or questions at anna.north@vox.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
4 hours ago
- Vox
Why your energy bill is suddenly so much more expensive
is a correspondent at Vox writing about climate change, energy policy, and science. He is also a regular contributor to the radio program Science Friday. Prior to Vox, he was a reporter for ClimateWire at E&E News. Americans are paying more for electricity, and those prices are set to rise even further. In almost all parts of the country, the amount people pay for electricity on their power bills — the retail price — has risen faster than the rate of inflation since 2022, and that will likely continue through 2026, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Energy Information Administration Just about everything costs more these days, but electricity prices are especially concerning because they're an input for so much of the economy — powering factories, data centers, and a growing fleet of electric vehicles. It's not just the big industries; we all feel the pinch firsthand when we pay our utility bills. According to PowerLines, a nonprofit working to reduce electricity prices, about 80 million Americans have to sacrifice other basic expenses like food or medicine to afford to keep the lights on. And it's about to get even worse: Utilities in markets across the country have asked regulators for almost $29 billion in electricity rate increases for consumers for the first half of the year. Related The hidden reason why your power bill is so high Why are prices rising so much all of a sudden? Right now, there are the usual factors driving the rise in electricity rates: high demand, not enough supply, and inflation. But there are problems that have been building up for decades as well, and now the bills are due: Aging and inadequate infrastructure needs replacement, while outdated business models and regulations are slowing the deployment of urgently needed upgrades. On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to bring energy prices down by increasing fossil fuel extraction. 'My goal will be to cut your energy costs in half within 12 months after taking office,' Trump said last August in a speech in Michigan. But electricity prices are still going up, and Trump's signature legislative accomplishment, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, is likely to raise prices further. Without better management and investment, the result will be more expensive and less reliable power for most Americans. The variables baked into your power bill, explained There are several key factors that shape how much you pay for electricity. There's the cost of building, operating, and maintaining power plants. Higher interest rates, inflation, tariffs, and longer interconnection queues — power generators waiting for approval to connect to the grid — are making the process of building a new electricity generator slower and more expensive. PJM, the largest power market in the US, said this week that soaring demand for electricity and delays in building new generators will raise power bills 1 to 5 percent for customers in its service area across 13 states and the District of Columbia. Then there's the fuel itself, whether that's coal, oil, natural gas, or uranium. For renewables, the cost of wind, water, and sunlight are close to zero, but intermittent generators need conventional power plants or energy storage systems to back them up. Still, wind and solar power have been some of the cheapest sources of electricity in recent years, forming the dominant share of new power generation connecting to the grid. That electricity then has to be routed from power plants over transmission lines that can span hundreds of miles and into distribution networks that send electrons into homes, offices, stores, and factories. 'It is the poles and wires that make up our electric infrastructure that's increasing in cost particularly rapidly.' — Charles Hua, founder and executive director of PowerLines Then you have to think about demand, over the course of hours, days, months, and years. Some utilities offer time-of-use billing that raises rates during peak demand periods like hot summer afternoons and lowers them in evenings. Cooling needs are a big reason why overall electricity use tends to be higher in summer months than in the winter. And for the first time in a decade, the US is experiencing a sustained increase in electricity use driven in part by a rapid buildout of power-hungry data centers, more EVs, more electric appliances, and more air conditioning to stay cool in hotter summers. More users for the same amount of electricity means higher prices. The Trump administration's rollback of key incentives for renewables and slowdown of approvals for new projects is likely to slow the rate of new generation coming online. And the process of bridging electricity supplies with demand is becoming a bottleneck, thus comprising a larger share of the overall bill. 'If you actually look at the cost breakdowns of what's significantly increasing, it's really the grid,' said Charles Hua, founder and executive director of PowerLines. 'It is the poles and wires that make up our electric infrastructure that's increasing in cost particularly rapidly.' According to the EIA, just under two-thirds of the average price of electricity is due to generation costs, with the remainder coming from transmission and distribution. However, energy utilities are now putting more than half of their expenditures into transmission and distribution through the end of the decade. 'It used to be the case maybe a decade ago where generation was the largest share of utility investments, and therefore customer bills,' Hua said. 'But it has now been inverted where really it's the grid expense that is rising and doesn't show any signs of relief.' There are several reasons for this. One is that the existing power grid is old, and many components like conductors and switchgear are reaching the ends of their service lives. Replacing 1960s hardware at 2025 prices raises operating costs even for the same level of service. But the grid now needs to provide higher levels of service as populations grow and as technologies like intermittent renewables and energy storage proliferate. Power outages driven by extreme weather are becoming more frequent and longer, but hardening the grid against disasters like floods and fires is expensive too. Putting a powerline underground can add up to double or more the price of stringing conductors along utility poles, which is why power companies have been slow to make the change, even in disaster-prone regions. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. While utilities are pouring money into distribution networks, they are having a harder time building new long-distance transmission lines as they run into permitting and regulatory delays. The US used to build an average of 2,000 miles of high-voltage transmission per year between 2012 and 2016. The construction rate dropped to 700 miles per year between 2017 and 2021, and dipped to just 55 miles in 2023. There were 125 miles of new high-voltage transmission installed in the first half of 2024, but it was all for one project. The Department of Energy this week canceled a loan guarantee for the Grain Belt Express, a transmission project that would stretch 800 miles across four states. There are also shortages of critical parts of the grid like transformers while tariffs on materials like aluminum and steel are pushing up construction expenses. One underrated driver of higher prices is the lack of coordination between utilities, grid operators, and states on how to spend their money. In utility jargon, this process is called Integrated Distribution System Planning, where everyone with a stake in the energy network puts together a comprehensive plan of what to buy, where to build it, and who should pay — but only a few states like Illinois, Maine, and New Hampshire have such a system set up. 'That's sort of a no-brainer,' Hua said. 'Anybody should understand the need to plan ahead, especially if you're talking about something that has such high economic implications, but that's not what we're doing.'
Vox
18 hours ago
- Vox
How the Jeffrey Epstein scandal became the mother of all conspiracy theories
is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He's worked at Vox since the site's launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker's Washington, DC, bureau. A message calling on President Donald Trump to release all files related to Jeffrey Epstein is projected onto the US Chamber of Commerce building across from the White House on July 18, 2025. Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images The political world's frenzy over the Jeffrey Epstein scandal has essentially blotted out the sun. That's even though Epstein has been dead for nearly six years, and the scandal around him has no apparent import to American public policy. So why is the obsession over it so intense? The known facts around Epstein are genuinely mysterious and shocking. He became fabulously wealthy through unclear means, he cultivated a social circle full of powerful elites, he's been accused of sex crimes by dozens of women (many of whom were underage), he owned two private islands, and he died in jail in what the FBI has said was a suicide. But in the minds of many, the scandal has become something far more than the known facts — it's become, basically, the mother of all conspiracy theories. Because a curious aspect to the Epstein scandal is that it has something to captivate just about every political subculture. Depending on which parts of the story you zoom in on or studiously ignore, it can be a Me Too story of women being abused by a powerful man, a MAGA tale of liberal elites' sex crimes, or a #Resistance scandal that will reveal the dark truth about Trump. Those inclined to suspect deep state malfeasance fixate on a cover-up or the hypothetical involvement of intelligence agencies. Antisemites focus on Epstein being Jewish. Particularly, the MAGA right demonstrated extraordinary amounts of compartmentalization by becoming obsessed with Epstein while totally ignoring that the leader of their political movement, Trump, had well-documented ties to the man. The Epstein scandal would, they thought, reveal that Democrats were perverted sex criminals — and Trump would help expose the truth. But any hopes of a revelatory new dump of Epstein info from the Trump administration have been extinguished, and Trump has desperately tried to change the subject to other topics. This may well be because Trump's own name is in there. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that, back in May, administration officials told Trump his name appeared in Epstein case documents, alongside many other people's names — and that the files contained lots of unverified hearsay about these people. Trump and his team's contortions — and the unusual tension between the Trump administration and their base — have spurred a new round of investigative reporting about Trump and Epstein's ties. Democrats, too, have glommed on to the scandal as a way to hurt Trump politically. It's gotten so awkward for Republicans that Speaker Mike Johnson cut short the House of Representatives' work schedule this week, specifically to avoid votes on Epstein disclosures. But so far, every attempt by Trump and his allies to move on from Epstein has only spurred more interest in the topic — and more questions about whether they're trying to hide something. Epstein theories escaped containment on the right, getting out of Trump's control Trump, a longtime fan of conspiracy theories about his political enemies, has generally proved quite skilled at guiding and diverting the MAGA base's attention to his preferred targets — mainly, top Democrats and government officials involved in investigating Trump. But there's always been an element of far-right conspiracy theorizing he couldn't quite control — as demonstrated with Pizzagate and especially QAnon, two made-up theories about Democrats being involved in child sex crimes that were fervently believed by many on the right. With QAnon in particular, Trump never outright endorsed the theory's claims, but he recognized the power it held over many in his base, so he and his team pandered to it in coded ways. The obsession with the idea that Democrats were secret child sex abusers transitioned neatly into the Epstein saga. Epstein was accused of sexually abusing underage girls, he had flown former President Bill Clinton around on his private jet in the early 2000s, and he had many connections in elite liberal circles, including from Hollywood and academia. All this has only heightened suspicions that something is in those files that makes Trump look quite bad. Then, Epstein's 2019 death in jail was the clincher: Clearly, the right-wing base believed he was murdered before his trial to prevent him from implicating other powerful people in his sex crimes. Elements of the government were probably involved in this cover-up, they thought. The belief spread that there was an Epstein 'client list' naming people he supplied underage girls to. It would have been a perfect issue for Trump to use to fire up the base, if not for the inconvenient problem that Trump actually knew Epstein quite well. Trump and Epstein frequently socialized in New York and Florida in the 1990s and early 2000s, Trump flew on Epstein's private jet seven times, Epstein attended Trump's second wedding, and Trump reportedly wrote Epstein a message for his 50th birthday saying they had 'certain things in common' and alluding to a 'wonderful secret.' In 2002, Trump even told a reporter that Epstein was a 'terrific guy' who likes women 'on the younger side.' So Trump would've very much preferred his base not get so fixated on Jeffrey Epstein as the key to all conspiracies. But the president couldn't stop it. Over the past few years, the theory escaped 'containment,' promoted by right-wing commentators, podcasters, and influencers who perceived that it was quite effective at boosting ratings and engagement. They all proved extremely adept at averting their eyes from the well-documented Trump-Epstein connections, but in practice they spurred the MAGA base on to demand the release of the 'Epstein Files' once Trump was back in the White House. Furthermore, Trump chose top law enforcement officials — Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino — who were extremely sensitive to how they were portrayed in right-wing media. Their ham-handed efforts to please the base on this topic just resulted in further uproars (and finger-pointing among themselves). Finally, Trump himself stepped in to try to give his base their new talking points: that the Epstein story was a 'Hoax' akin to the Russia investigation, cooked up by his political enemies to make him look bad. 'Let's keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about,' he posted on Truth Social. All this has only heightened suspicions that something is in those files that makes Trump look quite bad. After some trepidation, Democrats have now embraced the Epstein scandal In the past, Democrats have had a complicated relationship with the Epstein scandal. In the early 2000s, after Clinton left office, he became friends with Epstein, flying on his private jet several times during that period. Given Clinton's own history of sex scandals, this looked awkward, even suspicious, when the allegations about Epstein started to become known in the mid-2000s. Hillary Clinton was viewed as the party's future, so there was little desire to dwell on what happened with Epstein. That changed during the Me Too era. With a societal reckoning against powerful men like Harvey Weinstein, who abused and mistreated women, Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown delved back into the Epstein case. Brown chronicled his victims' stories and questioned whether prosecutors had given him a sweetheart deal during his first brush with the law. One news 'hook' was that a prosecutor who'd arranged that deal, Alexander Acosta, was then serving in Trump's Cabinet. Brown's reporting helped spur Epstein's indictment and arrest in 2019, and the media prepared for what was sure to be a blockbuster trial. But the trial never happened, because Epstein was found dead in his cell just a month after his arrest. After Epstein's death, the MAGA base's interest in him increased, while Democrats' interest in him dwindled. 'Epstein didn't kill himself' became a common phrase on some parts of the right, but the idea of a secret jail murder conspiracy sounded silly to Democrats' increasingly upscale and educated voter base. What Democrats needed to revive their interest was for the Epstein scandal to become a Trump scandal. And that's what Trump's team has inadvertently brought about. Their botched disclosures and awkward attempts to change the subject spurred new investigative reporting about Trump and Epstein. And it's resulted in a frenzy of public interest that Trump hasn't been able to escape.
Vox
21 hours ago
- Vox
Some Democrats may finally be ready to play dirty over redistricting
is a senior politics reporter at Vox, where he covers the Democratic Party. He joined Vox in 2022 after reporting on national and international politics for the Atlantic's politics, global, and ideas teams, including the role of Latino voters in the 2020 election. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to retaliate at Texas by forcing a state referendum or legislation to redraw districts to give Democrats a five- to seven-seat boost in Congress.A new kind of political battle is emerging between America's parties — one centers on the composition of Congress and congressional redistricting. This process usually occurs every decade, after the US Census finishes its work and releases new demographic information that states use to reconfigure how the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are divided among the 50 states. But this month, Texas Republicans are scrambling those norms. Republican lawmakers have begun fielding proposals for the GOP-controlled legislature to redraw their congressional maps in the middle of the decade to give the national party an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections. It's a blatant power play — jump-started by President Donald Trump's desire to offset potential losses next year and win a bigger Republican majority in the House for the second half of his term. At the moment, it looks likely that Republicans might lose some ground in Congress, as has been the trend for presidents' parties for the last 70 years. The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. This mid-decade redistricting effort is not the first time Texas Republicans have aggressively gerrymandered seats to boost their party's representation in Congress, but it is abnormal for redistricting to happen this early, or as a direct response to a president's wishes to gain an electoral advantage. And it doesn't seem like Texas will be the only Republican-controlled state to try this. This sudden gamesmanship is forcing national and state-level Democrats to consider their own tit-for-tat, mid-decade redistricting efforts — and to confront a harsh reality. Many Democrats lack the political will to bend norms in response to these Republican efforts. And those who do will face steep legal and political obstacles, including from their own party. How Republicans are pressing their advantage Republicans have the upper hand on redistricting. In the majority of states across the country, state legislatures have the primary control and power to draw district lines. That includes the three states where Republicans have signaled they will try to redraw maps before the 2026 midterms — Texas, Ohio, and Missouri — all in which the GOP has unified control of the legislature and the governor's office. Through redistricting these states alone, Republicans would be able to gain enough seats to secure a majority after midterm elections. They'd gain about five seats in Texas, anywhere from one to three seats in Ohio, and one seat in Missouri. Republicans currently have a three-seat majority in the House, as a result of resignations and deaths, which shrinks to a two-seat majority if all those vacancies are filled. And there are still more Republican-run states that could be tapped. As Punchbowl News reported this week, five Democratic-held seats could be threatened in Florida if Gov. Ron DeSantis agrees to a mid-decade redraw. And New Hampshire's governor, Kelly Ayotte, could still be convinced by the White House to consider state Republicans' past plans to create another Republican-friendly seat in the state. Other Republican-leaning states — like Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, and Nebraska — are limited from redrawing maps before 2026 by Democratic governors, more moderate Republican legislators and state courts, or the fact that their legislatures aren't in session. Democrats in the three states that will likely create new GOP seats have few options to resist or block redraws. In Texas, Democrats have considered boycotting or preventing the legislature from voting by leaving the state — though Republicans are trying to force them to participate by delaying a vote on flood disaster relief and recovery funding until after their redistricting effort passes. Democrats in Ohio and Missouri have no similar leverage. That leaves out-of-state Democrats as the next line of defense. But they face obstacles there. Democrats are limited by their own advocacy Democrats hoping to strike back have many fewer options. They're limited by the number of states they control, the way those states handle redistricting, and the political will of legislators who view this kind of redistricting as beyond the pale. Democrats have unified control in 15 states, out of which they could probably only gain seats in about nine states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But politicians trying to redraw districts in any of these states will face steep hurdles. In California, Colorado, New York, New Jersey, and Washington, independent or bipartisan commissions have the power to draw congressional maps, not state legislatures. Those commissions were set up after years of bipartisan advocacy for fair representation and liberal activism for better government accountability and transparency. They are enshrined by state law or were set up by state ballot measures, and would require constitutional amendments, a statewide referendum, or court challenges to return redistricting power to the state legislature. That includes California — the state with the largest population — where Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to retaliate at Texas by forcing a state referendum or legislation to redraw districts to give Democrats a five- to seven-seat boost. Newsom hasn't yet presented a solid case or plan for how he'd go about doing this, however. And he faces bipartisan opposition to his idea. Other states essentially have prohibitions on mid-decade or early redistricting efforts, Dan Vicuña, a redistricting expert at the government accountability organization Common Cause, told me. The state constitutions of Washington and New Jersey, Vicuña said, contain provisions that limit redistricting to the year immediately following the census, and limit intervention before that time. That leaves Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and Oregon as the Democratic states where early redistricting could likely be accomplished with fewer obstacles. Already, some Maryland Democrats are signaling they would try to squeeze one more Democratic seat by redrawing their district lines. National Democrats have said they'll try to gain a seat in Minnesota, though they'll have to wait until state Democrats regain their majority in the senate, where a Democratic lawmaker resigned this week, tying the chamber. Democrats may have no choice but to try redistricting For as much bluster as Democrats are making about trying to retaliate, Republicans are actually taking the steps to do early redistricting. Congressional Democrats, for now, are trying to build support among governors and state lawmakers to engage in this political back-and-forth. According to CNN, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his advisers are exploring legal ways to redraw maps in California, New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, and Washington, but those details have yet to be made public. But to stay in the game, Democrats may have to abandon their own rules. The Trump-era GOP has shown their willingness to push the bounds of political norms and bend institutions. There are valid, long-term concerns about what this kind of ad-hoc redistricting will mean for elections and trust in government in the future — what Vicuña described as a 'race to the bottom' — but Democrats, at least in Congress, are accepting that playing fair, or by old norms, isn't enough.
