Beto O'Rourke calls on Democrats to play hardball on redistricting
Beto O'Rourke wants Democrats to play hardball on redistricting. | Tony Gutierrez/AP
By Danny Nguyen
07/22/2025 04:07 PM EDT
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas added himself to a shortlist of Democrats pressuring California to carve out extra congressional districts for their party ahead of the midterms.
The remarks, made at an event hosted by the left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress on Tuesday, came a day after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott started a special session to redistrict his state years earlier than it normally would, which could thwart Democrats' attempt to recapture power in Congress in 2026. It's part of an effort led by President Donald Trump to hold the slim Republican majority, but California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to redistrict his state in a way that'd offset gains in Texas.
'Not only do I think he should do this, I don't think he should wait for Texas,' said O'Rourke, who is considering running for a Texas Senate seat in 2026. 'Why the fuck are we responding and reacting to the other side instead of taking offense on these things?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration recommends location verification for AI chips
By Stephen Nellis SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday recommended implementing export controls that would verify the location of advanced artificial intelligence chips, a move that was applauded by U.S. lawmakers from both parties in both houses of Congress. The recommendation was part of a broader AI blueprint released on Wednesday that aimed to boost exports of AI hardware and software to U.S. allies and relax U.S. environmental rules to speed the construction of new AI data centers. But the plan released Wednesday also said the U.S. should continue denying access to advanced U.S. AI chips made by companies like Nvidia and AMD to foreign adversaries. It added the U.S. government should "explore leveraging new and existing location verification features on advanced AI compute to ensure that the chips are not in countries of concern." The recommendation drew support from two lawmakers who previously introduced bills that would require location verification of chips after sale over concerns that they are finding their way to countries such as China, where their export is banned. Key details - such as how the technology would be implemented and how much cost it would add - remain to be worked out, both in the proposed bills and the Trump administration's recommendations. "I was encouraged to see that the recommended export control policy includes location verification mechanisms and aligns closely with our bipartisan Chip Security Act. I look forward to learning more of the technical details and next steps for end-use verification," Representative Bill Foster, an Illinois Democrat who helped introduce a chip-location bill in May, told Reuters. "Senator Cotton was pleased to see verification included in President Trump's AI Action Plan, as it's a vital part of his bipartisan, bicameral Chip Security Act and an important tool to keep advanced American technology out of the hands of Communist China," said Patrick McCann, a spokesperson for Senator Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican who introduced a similar bill in the U.S. Senate.
Los Angeles Times
15 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
House resolution seeks to stop plan to shoot nearly half a million owls
Rep. Troy E. Nehls, a Republican from Texas, backed by 17 co-sponsors from both political parties, introduced a resolution Wednesday that could mark the end of a plan to protect spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest. The plan calls for shooting roughly 450,000 barred owls over 30 years in California, Oregon and Washington, because they are outcompeting spotted owls, pushing them out of their native territory. The spotted owls are in rapid decline. Northern spotted owls are listed as threatened under California and U.S. endangered species laws, and there may be as few as 3,000 left on federal lands. Federal wildlife officials have proposed endangered species protection for two populations of California spotted owls. In a statement, Nehls called the owl-culling plan, approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Biden administration, 'a waste of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars.' He estimated it will cost $1.35 billion, based on a $4.5-million contract awarded to the Hoopa Valley Tribe in Northern California last year to hunt about 1,500 barred owls over four years. That is about $3,000 per owl. The bipartisan alliance says killing the owls is also inhumane and unworkable. Co-sponsors of the resolution consist of 11 Republicans and six Democrats, including three California representatives — Josh Harder (D-Tracy), Adam Gray (D-Merced) and Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), according to Nehls' office. The effort makes use of the Congressional Review Act, a tool sometimes employed by new presidential administrations to reverse rules issued by federal agencies in the final months of prior administrations. In late May, the Government Accountability Office concluded the plan was subject to the act. To stop the owl-culling plan, both chambers of Congress would need to pass a joint resolution by majority vote and President Trump would need to sign it. If successful, the resolution would preclude the Fish and Wildlife Service from pursuing a similar rule, unless explicitly authorized by Congress. The plan already faced setbacks. In May, federal officials canceled three related grants totaling more than $1.1 million, including one study that would have remove barred owls from over 192,000 acres in Mendocino and Sonoma counties. Another would have removed them from the Mendocino National Forest. Some scientists and conservationists say nixing the plan would mean the end for northern spotted owls. The raptor, dark brown with bright white spots, prefers old-growth forests. It became the central symbol of the so-called timber wars in the 1980s and '90s when environmentalists and logging interests fought over the fate of old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. Barred owls are slightly larger, more aggressive and less picky when it comes to habitat and food — giving them an advantage in competition for resources. 'If we don't move forward with barred owl removal, it will mean the extinction of the northern spotted owl, and it will likely mean the extinction of the California spotted owl as well,' Tom Wheeler, executive director of the Environmental Protection Information Center, told The Times last week. He pointed to a long-term field experiment that showed spotted owl populations stabilized in areas where barred owls were killed. Barred owls originated in eastern North America and expanded west along with European settlers who planted trees and suppressed fires, biologists believe. Government scientists see barred owls' presence in the Pacific Northwest as invasive, but some argue that it's natural range expansion. 'Protecting spotted owls is an imperative, but assaulting other native wildlife occupying the same forests is not ethical or a practical means of achieving that goal,' said Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy, who has helped galvanize opposition to the culling plan.
CNBC
16 minutes ago
- CNBC
U.S. appeals court blocks Trump's order curtailing birthright citizenship
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order curtailing automatic birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide. The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked the first time an appeals court has assessed the legality of Trump's order since the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of lower court judges to enjoin that and other federal policies on a nationwide basis. The Supreme Court's June 27 ruling in litigation over Trump's birthright citizenship order limited the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directed lower courts that had blocked the Republican president's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions allowing courts to potentially still block it nationally again. That has already allowed a judge in New Hampshire to once again halt Trump's order from taking effect by issuing an injunction in a nationwide class action of children who would be denied citizenship under the policy. The 9th Circuit's majority in Wednesday's ruling said the Democratic-led states that had sued to block the policy - Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon - likewise still were entitled to a nationwide injunction as a more narrow order would not provide them "complete relief." "The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen," Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement. The Trump administration could either ask a wider panel of 9th Circuit judges to hear the case or appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which is expected to have the final word in the litigation. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump signed the order on Jan. 20, his first day back in office, as part of his hardline approach toward immigration. Trump's order directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. It was swiftly challenged in court by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. The Constitution's 14th Amendment citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The first judge to block Trump's directive was Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, who called it "blatantly unconstitutional." The 9th Circuit's ruling upheld his decision. U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, writing for Wednesday's majority, said Coughenour rightly concluded that Trump's executive order violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment by denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States. Gould said a geographically limited injunction would harm the four states by forcing them to overhaul their government benefits programs to account for how people denied citizenship under Trump's order might move into them. "It is impossible to avoid this harm absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States," Gould wrote. His opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins, a fellow appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton. U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying in his view the Democratic-led states lacked standing to challenge Trump's order, as he warned of the risks of "judicial overreach."
