Redistricting experts to Sacramento: You can go it alone
Harris' decision leaves her open to pursue the presidency again in 2028. It also galvanizes the long-frozen campaigns of California gubernatorial candidates, whose race is now wide open.
'For now, my leadership — and public service — will not be in elected office,' Harris said in a statement. 'I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans.'
Newsom, another possible 2028 presidential contender, shared an X post saying Harris has 'courageously served our state and country for her entire career.'
'Grateful for her service and friendship — and looking forward to continuing the fight in whatever the future might hold for her,' the governor said.
GERRYMANDERING 101: Call it the Fleetwood Mac option: California lawmakers could go their own way on a Democratic gerrymandering bid.
Redistricting experts have been briefing elections committee staff in the Legislature on a redraw strategy that would enlarge Democrats' House margin without voter approval, Playbook has learned. That would avert an expensive and uncertain special election — saving Newsom and allies money for other ballot battles — but it would push Democratic lawmakers into uncharted legal terrain.
Voters bequeathed California its independent House redistricting commission in 2010, and because only voters can substantially amend ballot initiatives once they've passed, they may need to sign off on Newsom's plan to redraw a few California House Republicans into oblivion.
Or they may not.
Newsom has argued there's another option: simply having the Legislature craft new maps. He's noted that California's constitution is silent on mid-decade redistricting (as opposed to the once-a-decade commission process linked to the Census). Now UCLA Voting Rights Project experts are bolstering that argument to the Legislature.
Their legal analysis, shared exclusively with POLITICO after it was presented to legislative staffers this week, argues the Legislature 'has the legal constitutional authority to draw new districts today' if it deems it 'appropriate' — as Newsom and other Democrats have argued.
None of this means the Legislature will decide to circumvent voters. Attorney General Rob Bonta suggested yesterday that the cleanest route would be lawmakers putting a new map on the ballot. That would give Democrats political cover and help inoculate them from the legal challenge that would inevitably follow if the Legislature simply goes it alone — a path that could end in an embarrassing court rebuke.
On the other hand, going to voters could end in an embarrassing (and costly) political rejection. Assuming Texas presses ahead with its gerrymander and California responds in kind, would Democrats roll their dice on a legal theory or take their chances with voters? Stay tuned.
IT'S WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON. This is California Playbook PM, a POLITICO newsletter that serves as an afternoon temperature check on California politics and a look at what our policy reporters are watching. Got tips or suggestions? Shoot an email to lholden@politico.com.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY
HOUSING HICCUP: Newsom's office confirmed today that he's expecting to roll back a state housing law for areas damaged by the January wildfires that tore through Los Angeles County, potentially blocking developers from using the law to increase density in single-family neighborhoods.
The move comes after Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other city leaders have implored Newsom to block denser development, warning it could complicate fire evacuations and strain local infrastructure in the ravaged Pacific Palisades neighborhood. Conservative media influencers have seized on residents' fears that more duplexes could add to traffic snarls.
'I can confirm the governor will issue an executive order today providing local governments in high severity burn areas with discretion to limit SB 9 development,' said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom, in a statement. 'Stay tuned.'
The law in question, SB 9, was passed in 2021 as part of an effort to ease the state's housing shortage by requiring cities to allow duplexes or lot splits on land zoned for single-family homes. Under Newsom's order, those projects could be temporarily halted in parts of LA, Altadena and Malibu, where thousands of homes were destroyed. — Dustin Gardiner
IN OTHER NEWS
JUSTICE POLITICS: California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff condemned the Trump administration's back-door move to give Bill Essayli 210 more days as acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California just as his interim appointment was set to expire.
The administration has used the same maneuver — prolonging the tenure of his picks through acting U.S. attorney appointments — in New York, New Jersey and Nevada.
'The Trump Administration is again hijacking the U.S. Attorney appointment process in order to keep Bill Essayli in power without Senate confirmation votes,' Padilla and Schiff said in a joint statement today. 'One look at Essayli's record shows you why President Trump is worried about formally nominating him and instead, is choosing to circumvent the law and the Senate's power of advice and consent.'
The Los Angeles Times reported last week that Essayli has struggled to secure indictments against people who were arrested during demonstrations prompted by ICE raids across Los Angeles County.
Though Essayli has not been formally nominated by the president, it's not a stretch to say that Padilla and Schiff would likely oppose the firebrand Republican's nomination through a 'blue slip.' The Senate Judiciary Committee tradition dating back to 1917, which defers to home-state senators on such matters, would likely prevent Essayli's nomination from even being considered.
On Tuesday, however, Trump pushed the committee's chair — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) — to essentially ignore any such objections and allow his nominations to be considered.
'He should do this, IMMEDIATELY, and not let the Democrats laugh at him and the Republican Party for being weak and ineffective,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'The Democrats have broken this ridiculous custom on us, it's time that we break it on them.'
Grassley later said he was 'offended' by the president's comments. — Nicole Norman
WAVE WATCH: Coastal California escaped mostly unscathed from tsunami threats after a large earthquake off the Russian coast on Tuesday night spurred warnings and advisories.
The National Weather Service this morning lifted its advisory for the Los Angeles coast, although Bass said city departments will be monitoring the situation throughout the day as dangerous currents persist.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported Crescent City on the state's far North Coast was hit the hardest, with waves hitting eight feet early this morning.
The tsunami also created an opportunity for the Trump administration to take another dig at Newsom over a natural disaster. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told the Associated Press she had been unable to reach him during the response.
A Newsom spokesperson refuted this to the Chronicle, saying the governor had no record of a call or text from the secretary.
WHAT WE'RE READING TODAY
— Prominent UCSF oncologist and Trump critic Dr. Vinay Prasad resigned from his senior post at the FDA. (San Francisco Chronicle)
— A tally of the plans by the more commonly known Silicon Valley startups shows they're spending $4 billion collectively over the next few years as dozens of industrial companies in the region are betting on the advancement of defense manufacturing. (Bloomberg)
— Court records show that federal authorities are using information the Los Angeles Police Department sends to national databases to find new targets. (Los Angeles Times)
AROUND THE STATE
— The San Diego City Council voted to turn an unusable office tower into rent-restricted apartments for low-income families. (San Diego Union-Tribune)
— The Sacramento City Council approved a change that will take effect next month banning people from sitting or laying down on the ground outside City Hall. (Sacramento Bee)
— compiled by Juliann Ventura
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
13 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
B.C.‘s Jobs Minister Kahlon urges Canada to ‘negotiate hard' over U.S. tariff raises
VICTORIA - British Columbia's minister of jobs and economic growth is urging the federal government to stand firm and 'negotiate hard' when trying to find a solution to 35 per cent tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump's Ravi Kahlon's advice to Prime Minister Mark Carney and his negotiating team is to keep up what they're doing, and 'find a path forward the best they can.' A statement from Premier David Eby's office says he remains focused on protecting workers and businesses in B.C. from the 'deeply harmful tariffs' imposed by Trump's administration. It says Eby supports the federal government's efforts to get a 'good deal' for Canada, adding that he looks forward to speaking to the prime minister about the situation. The United States imposed a 35 per cent tariff on all Canadian goods outside the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement on free trade after an agreement couldn't be reached by the Aug. 1 deadline. Several other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and the European Union, have reached deals before the deadline. Kahlon said Trump is 'constantly finding ways to raise the temperature' so 'they can squeeze out the most' from any agreement. He said he believes Carney and Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc are taking the right approach, 'which is keeping their head down, continue to be at the table, continue to find solutions, and not getting distracted by the day-to-day swings of the president of the United States.' He said he would also highlight the importance of the softwood lumber industry for B.C., which is just as crucial as the auto industry is to Ontario. 'The forest sector here in British Columbia should get the same support,' Kahlon said. Both Eby and Kahlon have repeatedly argued that the long-running softwood lumber dispute with the United States should be part of a larger deal. Brian Menzies, executive director of the Independent Wood Processors Association of British Columbia, said he is 'not very optimistic' that a future deal would also resolve the softwood dispute as the industry already faces combined tariffs and duties of almost 35 per cent. 'We have been at this for eight years now, and there doesn't seem to be enough of a push on the American side to resolve this,' he said. Menzies also favours ongoing negotiations with the United States to resolve the tariff dispute. 'I would say it's better to get a good deal than a bad deal,' he said. 'I'd say right now, 'Do your best to stand up for what's important for Canada,'' he said. Menzies said being 'kowtowed and pushed over' is not good for Canada or the United States. 'People respect people who stand up for what's important to them, and that's the basis for any negotiation,' Menzies said. Menzies noted that any future deal with the United States might not last long, given Trump's temperament. Kahlon agreed. 'We take nothing for granted,' he said. 'It's a sad state for us in Canada to have a partner down south that doesn't honour a handshake, an agreement,' he said. 'It's hard to do business with somebody that is hard to trust when these things come.' Kahlon added that even the United Kingdom and the European Union are not sure if they actually have agreements with the United States. 'So the uncertainty continues,' he said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 1, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate passes first funding package ahead of shutdown cliff
'It's taken a great deal of work, good faith and negotiation to get to this point,' Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine). 'Congress has a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility under Article I, for the power of the purse. We are executing that responsibility.' The package would provide almost $154 billion for military construction and veterans programs. It would send more than $27 billion to the Agriculture department and FDA. Both represent a roughly 2 percent boost over current levels. The Senate rejected an amendment from Sen. Jeff Merkley, an appropriator and the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, that would bar the rescission, or clawback, of funds in the bill by the White House. Democrats are worried that the administration will send another rescissions package ahead of the fall funding deadline, which would likely implode any hopes of getting a larger funding deal. Still, Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, defended the smaller deal reached among senators, saying that the package 'rejects damaging cuts from Trump and House Republicans.' The Senate adopted by voice vote an amendment from Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Alex Padilla of California that would bar the use of any funds in the bill to reduce services provided by the Veterans Crisis Line. Senators rejected other amendments from Democrats including one that would have halted funding of the Agriculture Department reorganization and another to require a report on staffing reductions at the VA. They also rejected amendments from Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) that would have made deeper cuts to the Agriculture-FDA bill. The chamber also voted 75-21 to reject a proposal from Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin that would bar lawmakers from taking credit for earmarks. It would require the funding to be revoked if a lawmaker were to ever tout their earmarks in interviews, mailings, speeches or even on the campaign trail.
