Latest news with #Republican-dominated
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
What if the Parties Struck a Truce on Self-Destructive Gerrymandering?
America's two major political parties are about to exchange the next salvos in a decades-long battle where—as is typical of trench warfare—they both stand to lose. Texas Governor Greg Abbott is under severe pressure from President Donald Trump to restart one of the most craven and self-destructive practices of American politics in the 21st century: predatory gerrymandering. California Governor Gavin Newsom has made clear that, if Abbott goes through with it, he stands ready to retaliate. If you're thinking "gee, this sounds like a boring, technical issue for government nerds to fuss over," it's not. It's been a poison that's seeped further into our political life than most realize. Here's what happened. Partisan gerrymandering—drawing legislative and congressional districts to maximize your party's power—goes back literally to the birth of the republic. But for most of the 20th century, state political leanings were so stable that parties kept their maps in place. Even after Supreme Court rulings in the mid-1960s forced change, the parties settled into a fairly anodyne process, forming districts once every ten years after the new national census with only minor angling for political advantage. In 2003, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay broke the tacit truce. After Texas drew its districts following the 2000 census, he waited for Republicans to gain complete control of Texas government, and then maneuvered an ambush: a sudden redraw that gave Republicans six more congressional seats. Once DeLay started this new predatory approach—grabbing for power at any opportunity—others followed. Republican-dominated states started to copycat Texas, and Republicans saw an opportunity if they were really willing to push the envelope. Political strategist Karl Rove crafted a project called REDMAP to win key state legislative seats all over the country in order to drive an even more aggressive round of congressional redistricting. It worked: in 2012, Democrats won 1.4 million more votes for the U.S. House than Republicans, but Republicans won the chamber 234-201. In the Wisconsin legislature, as just one state example, Republicans won less than half of the statewide vote but took 61 percent of the legislative seats. These outrageous power tilts still exist around the country. US President Donald Trump (L) listens to Texas Governor Greg Abbott speak during a meeting with local officials and first responders in Kerrville, Texas, on July 11, 2025, following devastating flooding that occurred in the... US President Donald Trump (L) listens to Texas Governor Greg Abbott speak during a meeting with local officials and first responders in Kerrville, Texas, on July 11, 2025, following devastating flooding that occurred in the area over the July 4 weekend. More BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images Most Americans might dismiss all this as another instance of all's-fair-in-love-and-war political skullduggery. Why was it actually so bad? For Republicans, gerrymandering helped drive the MAGA-fication of the party. To achieve the 2010 backlash that would fuel their predatory gerrymandering scheme, Republican leaders engineered an angry populist movement—the Tea Party. That Frankenstein's monster came alive and helped Republicans shellack Democrats in the 2010 midterms, but then escaped lab containment. Feuds between Tea Party-aligned activists and establishment Republicans roiled the party in 2012 and sank them in 2014, leaving the party rudderless, confused, and ripe for Trump's takeover. Then the Trump faction became a force inside America's gerrymandered districts. Since his endorsement was seen as the critical factor in winning Republican primaries, and with almost all Republicans districts being "ultra-safe," the majority of state and U.S. House elected officials became Trump acolytes. Democrats in turn became both politically neutered and schizophrenic: in a few places successfully depoliticizing redistricting through independent commissions, in other places trying (unsuccessfully) to even the score after the 2020 census with their own aggressive gerrymanders. So they remain boxed out of power in most states, still trying to land a feeble counterpunch. It's left them with a severe case of "don't wrestle a pig in the mud; you get dirty and he has fun." And we Americans ended up with a mess. Trump's gerrymandering-enabled leveraged buyout of the Republican Party—and now the U.S. government—means his faction of MAGA Republicans (which represents only 16 percent of Americans) gets to drive a radical agenda that the majority of us oppose. So everyone has lost—Republicans as much as anyone, as their party has been coopted and as their ultra-aggressive tactics have sometimes backfired. But, addicted to a toxic formula that has worked out well for him so far, Trump is now looking for even more aggressive gerrymandering, and California Governor Gavin Newsom is threatening to retaliate with some partisan redistricting of his own. So the cycle will restart, and the screws will continue to tighten. But what if the few remaining adults in American politics said, "enough?" There's actually a model in 20th century political history for one way it could work. In 1940s and 1950s, it was common for U.S. senators of opposing parties to form a "voting pair" on a bill. Since their votes would cancel each other out, they would skip the vote together. Greg Abbott could call Gavin Newsom and say "hey, we're a couple of Washington outsiders with national ambitions—let's pair up on a ceasefire. I'll carve out a little space from Trump, you'll show that you can work with Republicans. Our parties will breathe a sigh of relief, and we'll do our country a lot of good. We could even start a trend for other states to follow." Likely? No. But possible? Absolutely. It wouldn't undo the damage that's been done. But the first rule when you're in a hole is to stop digging. Matt Robison is a writer, podcast host, and former congressional staffer. The views in this article are the writer's own.
San Francisco Chronicle
16-07-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
To counter Texas, Newsom suggests special election to gerrymander California
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday said he's thinking about calling a special election to gerrymander California's congressional districts to counter similar efforts in Texas. Newsom's comments come after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced plans for the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature to draw new congressional maps in a special legislative session. Texas, like other states, redrew its maps after the 2020 census. New map-drawing normally wouldn't happen until the next census in 2030 absent a successful lawsuit forcing a state to redo them. But the New York Times has reported Trump's political advisers are pushing for Texas to redraw its maps ahead of the midterms to be more favorable to Republicans. Texas, the second-most populous state, could theoretically tip the balance of power in favor of Republicans if it can find a way to redraw its maps to give its party a further advantage in the state. Republicans hold 25 of the 38 congressional districts in Texas. California, the most populous state, is the only state with more congressional seats. Democrats hold 43 of California's 52 seats. It's currently much easier for Republicans who control the Texas Legislature to redraw their districts to favor their party than a similar move would be for Newsom. That's because California voters in 2010 gave the power to draw congressional districts to an independent redistricting commission. Though Democrats dominate California government, they do not dominate the redistricting commission. By law, the commission comprises five Democrats, five Republicans and four commissioners not affiliated with either party. Changing the state law creating the independent redistricting commission would require voter approval, which Newsom said he's considering. He said he's talked to state lawmakers about putting a measure on the ballot and calling a special election asking voters to approve it. 'I think we will win that,' Newsom said on the liberal podcast Pod Save America. 'I think people understand what's at stake in California.' A statewide special election would be costly — the last one in 2021 cost $200 million in public money. And the 2010 law giving the independent commission power to draw congressional districts was popular. More than 60% of voters supported the law. Newsom also suggested another possible avenue, which would involve interpreting state law as allowing the Legislature to create its own maps in between the post-census redistricting that the independent commission does every 10 years. It's not clear whether such a move would hold up in court. Currently, Republicans hold 220 seats in the House compared with Democrats' 212, a number that shrunk in recent months after three Democrats died in office, leaving vacancies. But that majority will be tough for the GOP to hold in the midterms, when a president's party typically has trouble retaining seats. Newsom said he thinks that redistricting should be done by independent commissions across the country. But he argued that Republicans are not playing fair by trying to redraw the maps. 'These guys are playing by a different set of rules,' he said. 'From my perspective, if we're gonna play fair in a world that is wholly unfair, we may have the higher moral ground, but the ground is shifting from underneath us.'
San Francisco Chronicle
14-07-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Gavin Newsom teased a redistricting fight with Texas. Can he even do that?
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom suggested he's contemplating a response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's efforts to redraw congressional maps to favor Republicans, but California's laws will make any counter moves by Newsom difficult — if not impossible. Newsom began making comments last week after Abbott announced plans for the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature to draw new congressional maps in a special legislative session. Texas, like other states, redrew its maps after the 2020 census. New map-drawing normally wouldn't happen until the next census in 2030 absent a successful lawsuit forcing a state to redo them. But the New York Times has reported Trump's political advisers are pushing for Texas to redraw its maps ahead of the midterms to be more favorable to Republicans. The California Legislature, where Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers, 'could gerrymander like no other state,' Newsom told liberal news outlet the Tennessee Holler in an interview that published Thursday, referring to the practice of redrawing districts to favor a certain political party. 'I saw what Gov. Abbott did today … These guys are not f---ing around,' Newsom said. 'They're playing by a different set of rules … We've been playing fair but it made me question that entire program. These guys are going to do everything in their power to maintain their power.' Newsom added that it's imperative for his party to take back control of the House of Representatives. Currently, Republicans hold 220 seats in the House compared to Democrats' 212, a number that shrunk in recent months after three Democrats died in office, leaving vacancies. But that majority will be tough for the GOP to hold in the midterms, when a president's party typically has trouble holding onto seats. Newsom has become more aggressively political in recent weeks. After trying to play nice with Trump in the first months of his second presidency, Newsom abandoned those efforts last month when the president deployed National Guard troops to the streets of Los Angeles in response to protests. Since then, he has given a primetime address accusing Trump of assaulting democracy; launched a social media onslaught against the president and other Republican officials; and gone on a tour through parts of South Carolina he billed as an effort to challenge the GOP on its home turf. In a post where he included a video of his comments to the Holler, Newsom wrote: 'Texas is using a special session about emergency disaster aid to redistrict their state and cheat their way into more Congressional seats. These guys have no shame. CA is watching — and you can bet we won't stand idly by.' But California's laws constrain Newsom from responding in kind to any efforts in Texas to redraw maps to favor Republicans. Voters in California took that power from the state Legislature in 2008 and handed it to an independent redistricting commission, which draws the lines for California's congressional and state legislative districts. Though Newsom is correct that Democrats dominate the Legislature, they do not dominate the redistricting commission. By law, the commission comprises five Democrats, five Republicans and four commissioners not affiliated with either party. Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College who serves as one of the Democratic commissioners, said the governor doesn't have any power over the commission's activities and can't force it to draw new maps in Democrats' favor. 'In this national context, I can understand the governor's inclination to want to retaliate,' she said. 'However the people of California have made it clear at the ballot that the governor does not have that power.' California's system is somewhat unusual — in most states, the parties can wield significant influence over the redistricting process, especially in places where one party controls state government. 'I certainly understand and recognize that the balance of power hinges on redistricting, and when all states are not playing fair, the fact that California does puts Democrats at a disadvantage,' Sadhwani said.
Chicago Tribune
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: The Tribune Editorial Board is correct about the gutting of degree programs at Indiana University
Thank you for your editorial on the gutting of degree programs at Indiana's public universities ('Indiana University, Ball State and Purdue are gutted without logic or thought,' July 7). As a professor at Indiana University Bloomington as well as an IU parent, it hits close to home. My only quibble is that 'carnage' may underestimate the damage caused by the cuts. Gov. Mike Braun claimed that streamlining degree offerings 'will help students make more informed decisions about the degree they want to pursue and ensure there is a direct connection between the skills students are gaining through higher education and the skills they need most.' However, the reduction of degree programs was not based on skills: There was no discussion or analysis of the skills taught in any of the programs, nor any identification of 'the skills they need most.' The cuts were by the numbers and on such a rushed schedule that there was no time (or provision) for discussing the relationships linking skills, degrees and jobs. Nor was there any explanation for the numbers chosen as thresholds for eliminating degree programs. Even worse: The numbers are one-size-fits-all, which means that they apply equally to the large flagship campuses and to the small regional campuses. If IU Bloomington, with more than 46,000 students, cannot meet the thresholds and has to eliminate or consolidate 116 degree programs, and IU Indianapolis (with more than 20,000 students) has to cut 50 programs, how much more will the university's five smaller, regional campuses, whose enrollments are fewer than 5,000 students and which serve many low-income and rural students, be hit? The reduction of programs is, in effect, a reduction of opportunities that will disproportionately affect students from low-income and rural backgrounds. Many of the programs being eliminated are housed within liberal arts schools. At IU Bloomington, the motto of the College of Arts & Sciences is: 'Question critically, think logically, communicate clearly, act creatively, live ethically.' My colleagues and I take pride in teaching students transferrable skills that will help them navigate a job market that artificial intelligence is changing by the minute. However, Indiana's Republican-dominated legislature is squelching these skills in the name of promoting 'workforce-ready skills' at the college and high school levels alike. Younger generations are being prepared to be worker bees — for jobs that are disappearing. In the end, it's not just the students who lose with these cuts. The whole state Tribune Editorial Board believes that, in protesting the Indiana University cuts, it is helping. However, the inaccurate reporting is hurting more than helping. I teach in the Art History Department at Indiana University in Bloomington. Despite what the editorial states, art history is not 'dead' at IU, nor is a commitment to consolidate or merge synonymous with 'dead,' as the editorial implies. Rather, 'consolidate or merge' means precisely what it says. Discussions are underway to consolidate the art history degree with one or more other degree programs. We are very much still in business. Unfortunately, because of such irresponsible reporting, we are getting queries from across the U.S. and indeed the world that simply assume our demise. Recommendation letter writers think that they no longer need to send requested letters (they do); students believe they are no longer enrolled in their degree program (they are); and so on. Despite our department being mentioned in the editorial, neither I nor, as far as I know, any of my colleagues were contacted to comment or to confirm or deny the editorial board's claims. Please feel free to contact us in order to bring more accuracy to your you for your incisive editorial concerning the Indiana Commission for Higher Education (ICHE) destruction of its state university system. I graduated from Indiana University in 1986. My four years there opened my eyes to other worlds, people and even areas of study I had never heard of before. Had I wished to, I could have studied and received a degree in Uralic and Altaic languages or folklore. While I did take some philosophy classes, my major was history after I briefly dabbled in political science. You may wonder if anything I learned is directly applicable to my present life. The answer is none and everything. Studying something you are not familiar with may not be useful in your life or your job, but it will change the way you view the world, other people and cultures. I can safely state that nothing I learned in three years of law school was ever directly applied to my career as a personal injury lawyer, yet the education I received in the alleged 'soft sciences' of history and philosophy is something I use daily in my interpersonal interactions, assessments of situations and people, and evaluations of situations. The short-sighted destruction of 'nonpractical' degree programs only increases the territorial small-mindedness that universities have attempted to modify for years. While the ersatz motto of the fictional Faber College in the movie 'Animal House' — 'Knowledge is Good' — is intended tongue-in-cheek, I would argue lack of knowledge is emphatically not good. Not for people, not for society and not for open minds. Shame on Indiana.I'm writing in response to the July 4 article about paratransit services ('At odds over paratransit services,' July 4) and would like to broaden the topic of the challenges faced by those with disabilities. In 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' Atticus Finch teaches his daughter, Scout, about empathy. 'You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.' In my case, I would ask you to roll around in mine. I use a wheelchair and have for many years. I applaud the important advances in accessibility over the last 34 years, which we will celebrate on National Disability Independence Day on July 26. There is, however, more work to be done to enable those with physical disabilities to participate fully in society. Many of the barriers are unseen by most people. It's only when you're faced with them that they become clear as day. From my personal experience, I sometimes find restaurants or other places of business are about 80% there. That's to be commended. However, most people would not drive over a bridge that spanned only 80% across a river. Here are just a few examples of partial accessibility. I have used a ramp only to find there is no electronic door opener, which prevents entry. Or, if there is an opener, there are other doors within the building that I cannot open. I also find tables and chairs so close together, I am unable to maneuver my wheelchair. Bathrooms can be especially challenging — 'handicap accessible' means more than a grab bar in a stall. I could go on. I know everyone has good intentions, and nobody creates these problems on purpose. They just need better data. I have two suggestions: Ask customers with disabilities to provide feedback on their experience at a restaurant or hotel. Better yet, invite people with disabilities to provide input during the design phase of a building. There are people with disabilities who stay home because they find going out too difficult. That's a shame. We can do better. Moreover, improving accessibility will benefit customers and boost business. It would be a win-win situation. It's time to listen to his letter ('We need AI therapy,' July 6), Slingshot AI co-founder Daniel Cahn makes the case for therapy by artificial intelligence. The problem is that therapy is not solely about saying, 'Do this and don't do that.' The emotional connection between therapist and patient is integral to the process. AI represents an inherent loss to the patient, as he or she is exploring intimate issues with a machine. One could argue that AI therapy is better than no therapy. I see that in the same light that I see arguments for AI lovers. I can't imagine that either is particularly satisfying.
Roya News
01-07-2025
- Business
- Roya News
Senate passes Trump's $3T 'One Big Beautiful Bill' act after 24-hour vote marathon
The Republican-dominated US Senate approved President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill on Tuesday, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," advancing legislation that would slash social spending, deepen the national debt, and extend Trump-era tax cuts by trillions of dollars. The bill passed by the slimmest possible margin, 50–50, after a record-setting 24-hour 'vote-a-rama' filled with heated debate and dozens of amendments. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote after Republican leadership managed to hold together their fragile coalition, persuading two wavering moderates at the last minute. The nearly 1,000-page legislation now heads back to the House of Representatives, where it faces firm Democratic resistance and skepticism from several Republicans concerned about the bill's deep cuts to programs like Medicaid and food assistance. At the center of the package is a USD 4.5 trillion extension of Trump's first-term tax cuts, partially offset by USD 1.2 trillion in savings, primarily from reductions to Medicaid, which independent analysts estimate could result in 12 million low-income and disabled Americans losing health coverage. The legislation also eliminates billions in clean energy tax credits while earmarking USD 350 billion for border security and funding for Trump's proposed mass deportation initiative. Speaking from Florida after touring new migrant detention facilities, Trump expressed confidence that the bill would soon become law. 'It's going to get in, it's going to pass, and we're going to be very happy,' he told reporters. Although the administration has set a July 4th goal for signing the bill, Trump acknowledged that deadline might slip. The bill is deeply unpopular among the public, with polling showing opposition across income brackets, age groups, and political affiliations. Democrats are aiming to capitalize on the public backlash ahead of the 2026 midterms, framing the legislation as a handout to the wealthy at the expense of the most vulnerable. 'It's bad legislation,' said Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona in an interview with MSNBC. 'If this passes, this is a political gift for Democrats.' Even some Republicans expressed discomfort over the bill's long-term fiscal impact. Estimates suggest it will add more than USD 3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. But the most vocal criticism has come from outside the Senate chamber, from none other than tech billionaire Elon Musk. Once a Trump ally, Musk has grown increasingly hostile toward the administration's spending priorities, especially the stripping of clean energy incentives. In recent days, Musk has ramped up his attacks, vowing to launch a new political party aimed at challenging lawmakers who, in his words, campaigned on fiscal restraint but voted to 'increase the biggest debt in history.' Musk, whose company SpaceX holds roughly USD 22 billion in government contracts, has been openly campaigning against the bill since stepping down from a White House advisory role in May. The feud escalated Tuesday when Trump fired back on social media. 'Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far,' Trump wrote. 'And without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa.' Although the House has already passed its version of the bill, the Senate's changes mean it must return to the lower chamber for final approval. A vote could come as early as Wednesday. House Republicans now face the difficult task of reconciling the Senate's adjustments with internal party divisions. Members of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus are particularly angry, claiming the Senate version introduces an additional USD 651 billion in deficit spending. With their narrow majority, House Republicans can afford to lose no more than three votes. Still, House Speaker Mike Johnson struck a confident tone. 'We're going to pass this bill one way or the other,' he told reporters on Monday.
