logo
5 things to know about the Texas special session on redistricting

5 things to know about the Texas special session on redistricting

The Hill6 days ago
Texas Republicans are using this month's special session to attempt to lock in the party's majority in Congress by means of weakening or eliminating Democratic districts in the state.
As President Trump's approval ratings slide and as Republicans brace for an unfavorable midterm environment, the president has called on the Texas GOP to give him five more seats in a nearly deadlocked House — forcing Democrats into a fight over redistricting they had hoped would happen in 2030, after they had several more years to make gains in the state.
Now that struggle likely will take center stage in the special session — originally called by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to deal with issues like a THC ban and the need for flood warning systems after this month's catastrophic floods — and risks opening up a redistricting arms race around the country.
Here are five things to know about the special session on redistricting:
How does it work?
In legislative terms, redistricting proceeds like any other piece of legislation: A bill introduced in the House's standing committee on redistricting then moves through other committees to a floor vote. If that bill becomes law, then a redistricting committee comprising state leaders — now all GOP — will get to redraw congressional maps.
It's the circumstances around that potential bill that are unusual — and that, in Texas, carry deep historical overtones.
While redistricting generally only happens every decade after the results of the decennial census, Texas Republicans have often used middecade restricting to cement their power.
In 2003, Republican leaders took advantage of the Statehouse's first GOP majority in a century to pass new maps that broke apart the districts of Texas Democratic members.
That broke a century-old Democratic majority in Texas's congressional delegation. Following redistricting after the 2000 Census, Democrats won 17 House seats during the 2002 election, while Republicans won 15.
But in 2004, after the initial redistricting push, those numbers were more than reversed. In the new districts, after trusted incumbents lost their seats, Democrats took just 11 seats — and Republicans 21.
How many more districts will be added?
In short, it's up in the air.
Trump has demanded the state party find him five more seats; lawmakers have not yet publicly released any proposals of a redrawn House map, which is expected to happen after the session begins Monday. Right now, the current partisan breakdown in Texas's delegation in the House is 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats.
Significantly, Texas isn't the only GOP-led state planning to redraw its lines this year. Ohio was already planning to undergo the process because of House maps passed in 2022 that did not have bipartisan support.
Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D) and Emilia Sykes (D) in Ohio's 9th and 13th Congressional Districts, respectively, are among the most vulnerable and likely to be targeted.
Rep. Greg Landsman (D), who represents Ohio's 1st Congressional District in Cincinnati, could also be targeted.
How will existing districts be affected?
On July 7, Trump's Department of Justice sent a letter to Texas demanding redistricting on the grounds that four majority-minority 'Black-brown' districts were 'unconstitutional racial gerrymanders' under the Voting Rights Act — and urged the state to break them up.
The legal analysis in that argument is 'superficial,' Harvard Law School professor Guy Charles wrote after the letter, arguing its purpose was primarily 'to provide a justification for Texas if it redraws those four districts.'
The DOJ focus on Black-brown districts suggests redistricting will take a form similar to the hub-and-spoke maps adopted after 2003: Democratic coalition districts broken up into overwhelmingly minority districts in the urban core, surrounded by Republican-majority districts with fantails stretching out through the suburbs.
The districts targeted in the DOJ letter are a Fort Worth-area district represented by Rep. Marc Veasey (D), and three Houston districts represented by Democratic Reps. Al Green, Sylvia Garcia and the late Sylvester Turner — the last of which is in the middle of a special election to fill the seat.
But one state Democratic strategist compared the four districts listed in the Trump DOJ letter to a 'lockpick' that allowed state Republicans to begin redrawing maps at will, meaning that far more districts could be targeted — particularly white Democrats like Reps. Lizzie Fletcher or Lloyd Doggett.
While the Justice Department in its letter argued 'several Texas Congressional Districts constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymanders,' The Texas Tribune noted that state lawmakers who drew the House maps after the 2020 Census argued they had drawn their lines with no regard for race.
How will it impact the midterms?
The midcycle redistricting could aid congressional Republicans who are bracing to lose some seats — and their razor-thin majority in the House. If the Texas plan succeeds, it offers a cushion to offset some of their losses — though if Republicans try to claim too many seats, they risk diluting their power and making formerly-safe Republican seats more competitive.
There's another risk: Triggering a redistricting arms race around the country. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) followed the DOJ letter by announcing his own plans to pursue middecade redistricting, House Democrats in other blue states are hoping to see their maps revisited and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has hinted the party is looking at New Jersey and New York.
Those states incorporate the use of a redistricting commission to create their maps, presenting hurdles for lawmakers.
What are Texas Democrats doing to respond?
Damage control. For Texas Democrats, the model for how to fight redistricting is what they did in 2003 and 2021: Flee the state to deny Republicans a quorum — the necessary minimum number of members present to do business.
Neither is a particularly encouraging model, however. Both times, Republicans ultimately passed the legislation in question, and sustaining such a campaign now would be difficult: Legislative Democrats would have to remain in exile until next year's primaries, away from their families and facing $500 fines per person per day.
But while the 2003 and 2021 walkouts failed at blocking Republican bills, they did draw national attention and ultimately help the party win a better deal than they otherwise might have.
Some party strategists are arguing that a strategic retreat this time, coupled with an aggressive messaging campaign targeting President Trump's unpopular spending bill, could help Democrats turn a debacle into an opportunity, particularly if Republicans overreach.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Oil jumps as Trump shortens Russia's deadline to end Ukraine war, US-EU trade deal spurs demand optimism
Oil jumps as Trump shortens Russia's deadline to end Ukraine war, US-EU trade deal spurs demand optimism

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Oil jumps as Trump shortens Russia's deadline to end Ukraine war, US-EU trade deal spurs demand optimism

Oil prices jumped Monday as President Trump shortened a timeline for Russia to end the war with Ukraine, prompting concerns potential sanctions could hit supply. Meanwhile, an agreement between the US and EU on the framework of a trade deal spurred optimism over demand. West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) climbed 1.9% to trade above $66 per barrel, and Brent (BZ=F) crude, the international benchmark price, rose to nearly $69 per barrel. The trade deal between the European Union and the US announced on Sunday includes $750 billion in EU purchases of American oil and natural gas. The stocks of liquified natural gas producers like Cheniere Energy (LNG), NextDecade (NEXT), and Venture Global (VG) all rose Monday as well. The 15% tariff deal on US imports from the EU fueled investors optimism over an eventual agreement with China as Washington and Beijing launched renewed trade talks. Meanwhile on Monday, President Trump shortened a timeline on Russia to end the war with Ukraine, from 50 days to less than two weeks, spurring concerns of a supply shock ahead. The president has threatened 'secondary tariffs' on Russia and countries purchasing from Moscow. "If enforced, oil markets cannot ignore the impact of triple-digit tariffs on Russian oil, given the significant scale of Russian exports and limited OPEC spare capacity, potentially leading to a supply shock," JPMorgan's Natasha Kaneva and her team wrote in a note earlier this month. The EU recently approved tougher price caps on Russian crude exports expected to go into effect in early September as a way to curtail the country's revenue. JPMorgan analysts expect oil price volatility to increase heading into September, citing uncertainty around Russia. The analysts also noted increases in supply from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) will already have been absorbed into the market by the fall. Ines Ferre is a senior business reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Senate Dems demand DOJ share Ghislaine Maxwell interview tapes, pledge not to pardon her
Senate Dems demand DOJ share Ghislaine Maxwell interview tapes, pledge not to pardon her

USA Today

time9 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Senate Dems demand DOJ share Ghislaine Maxwell interview tapes, pledge not to pardon her

The ranking Democrat on DOJ oversight committee fears 'a corrupt bargain between the Trump Administration' and the convicted Jeffrey Epstein associate. WASHINGTON – The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Richard Durbin, asked the Justice Department on July 28 for all recordings of its two days of interviews with Ghislaine Maxwell, the longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein who is now at the center of a public furor over unreleased DOJ investigative files into a child sex trafficking ring allegedly headed by the two. Durbin, D-Ill., sought all recordings and related transcripts in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the former Trump personal defense lawyer who conducted the interviews with Maxwell last week in Tallahassee, Fla., near where she is serving a 20-year prison sentence related to the trafficking ring. The letter was co-signed by fellow Judiciary Committee member Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the former top federal prosecutor in Rhode Island and state attorney general. The senators also demanded that the Justice Department commit to offering no pardon or reduction of Maxwell's sentence in exchange for information she provides, citing 'serious questions about the potential for a corrupt bargain between the Trump Administration and Ghislaine Maxwell.' 'What does the Justice Department want out of Ghislaine Maxwell? She's a proven liar and sex trafficker. The timing of her meeting with Deputy Attorney General Blanche doesn't pass the sniff test,' according to a social media post with the letter by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of the DOJ. 'They're on notice—no political games here.' In their letter, Durbin and Whitehouse noted that Maxwell has been accused by Justice Department prosecutors of being willing 'to brazenly lie under oath about her conduct' in connection with the case. More: Trump says he's 'allowed' to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell and he never went to Epstein's island They demanded to know 'why would DOJ depart from long-standing precedent and now seek her cooperation?' given those accusations of lying, Maxwell's sex trafficking conviction and the 'troves of corroborating evidence collected through multiple investigations.' The interviews with Maxwell, in which she was reportedly given partial immunity, are likely another tactic to distract from DOJ's failure to fulfill a commitment made by Attorney General Pam Bondi to publicly release all of the Epstein files in DOJ's possession, Durbin and Whitehouse wrote. 'The victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have been repeatedly let down by the criminal justice system,' the senators wrote. 'Rather than engaging in this elaborate ruse, DOJ should simply release the Epstein files, as Attorney General Bondi promised to do.' Trump has said twice in recent days, including Monday, that while he 'is allowed' to pardon Maxwell, he hasn't thought about it. Last Friday, after Maxwell's second day of interviews with Blanche, her lawyer David Markus noted that Trump 'said he had the power' to pardon her. 'We hope he exercises that power in the right and just way," Markus told reporters.

California, other states sue over USDA demand for SNAP recipients' data
California, other states sue over USDA demand for SNAP recipients' data

Los Angeles Times

time9 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

California, other states sue over USDA demand for SNAP recipients' data

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture's recent demand that they turn over the personal information of millions of people receiving federal food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins informed states earlier this month that they would have to transmit the data to the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service to comply with an executive order by President Trump. That order demanded that Trump's agency appointees receive 'full and prompt access' to all data associated with federal programs, so that they might identify and eliminate 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' Last week, USDA officials informed state SNAP directors that the deadline for submitting the data is Wednesday and that failure to comply 'may trigger noncompliance procedures' — including the withholding of funds. In announcing the states' lawsuit Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the 'unprecedented' demand 'violates all kinds of state and federal privacy laws' and 'further breaks the trust between the federal government and the people it serves.' Bonta's office noted that states have administered the equivalent of SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — for 60 years. It said that California alone receives 'roughly $1 billion a year' to administer the program in the state and that 'any delay in that funding could be catastrophic for the state and its residents who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.' The USDA has demanded data for all current and former SNAP recipients since the start of 2020, including 'all household group members names, dates of birth, social security numbers, residential and mailing addresses,' as well as 'transactional records from each household' that show the dollar amounts they spent and where. It said it may also collect information about people's income. Meanwhile, a Privacy Impact Assessment published by the agency showed that it also is collecting data on people's education, employment, immigration status and citizenship. The USDA and other Trump administration officials have said the initiative will save taxpayers money by eliminating 'information silos' that allow inefficiencies and fraud to fester in federal programs. 'It is imperative that USDA eliminates bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency and enhances the government's ability not only to have point-in-time information but also to detect overpayments and fraud,' Rollins wrote in a July 9 letter to the states. The Trump administration, which is pursuing what Trump has called the biggest mass deportation of undocumented immigrants in the nation's history, has requested sensitive data from other federal programs and services to share it with immigration officials — including Medicaid and the IRS. That has raised alarm among Democrats, who have said that tying such services to immigration enforcement will put people's health at risk and decrease tax revenue. California sued the Trump administration earlier this month for sharing Medicaid data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On Monday, Bonta raised similar alarms about the administration's demand for SNAP data, questioning what it will do with the information and how families that rely on such assistance will react. His office said it appeared to be 'the next step' in the administration's anti-immigrant campaign. 'President Trump continues to weaponize private and sensitive personal information — not to root out fraud, but to create a culture of fear where people are unwilling to apply for essential services,' Bonta said. 'We're talking about kids not getting school lunch; fire victims not accessing emergency services; and other devastating, and deadly, consequences.' Bonta said the USDA demand for SNAP benefits data is illegal under established law, and that California 'will not comply' while it takes the administration to court. 'The President doesn't get to change the rules in the middle of the game, no matter how much he may want to,' Bonta said. 'While he may be comfortable breaking promises to the American people, California is not.' The new data collection does not follow established processes for the federal government to audit state data without collecting it wholesale. During a recently concluded public comment period, Bonta and other liberal attorneys general submitted a comment arguing that the data demand violates the Privacy Act. 'USDA should rethink this flawed and unlawful proposal and instead work with the States to improve program efficiency and integrity through the robust processes already in place,' they wrote. Last week, California and other states sued the Trump administration over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen other federally funded benefit programs, including Head Start, short-term and emergency shelters, soup kitchens and food banks, healthcare services and adult education programs. The states did not include USDA in that lawsuit despite its issuing a similar notice, writing that 'many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,' which the department's notice said would continue to apply. Bonta announced Monday's lawsuit along with New York Attorney General Letitia James. Joining them in the lawsuit were Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the state of Kentucky.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store