Category Archives: redistricting

“How a U.S. Senate Race Is Shaping the Fight Over Redistricting in Texas”

NYT:

The standoff in Texas over redrawing the state’s U.S. House districts to a sharply tilted Republican advantage has played out before the backdrop of a contentious U.S. Senate race that may well be making the redistricting fight more contentious.

On the Republican side, the incumbent senator, John Cornyn, has set aside his often conciliatory demeanor, as he vies with his Senate primary opponent, Attorney General Ken Paxton, to see who can look tougher with runaway Democratic lawmakers.

On the Democratic side, State Representative James Talarico and former Representatives Beto O’Rourke and Colin Allred have used the standoff to gain publicity and rally the Democratic base around the notion that democracy itself is at stake. All three are potential rivals in the Senate race.

As the candidates position themselves, they’ve woven threats of prosecution and lawsuits with taunts and dares at the other party — and, in the case of Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Paxton, at each other — with few incentives for compromise….

Share this:

“The midterm map fight favors the GOP — and could help them stay in power”

WaPo:

President Donald Trump’s push to redraw the congressional map has fueled a redistricting arms race, with blue and red states rushing to counter each other.

But it’s an uneven fight.

Republicans appear to hold the advantage in the nationwide scramble, according to strategists and nonpartisan analysts, with more opportunities to shift the lines in their favor ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Democrats have vowed to “fight fire with fire” since the GOP moved to add five red seats in Texas, but they face many barriers.

Republicans are eyeing ways to add a dozen or more red House districts across Texas, Florida, Missouri, Ohio and Indiana, despite some legal hurdles and reservations from local Republicans. Democrats are looking to retaliate with five more blue seats in California, and they are exploring other options, including in Maryland and Illinois. They control fewer states than Republicans, however, and they have already maximized their power in others. In some cases, they would have to work around independent commissions set up to prevent gerrymandering.

“The Republicans are pretty likely to come out ahead — it’s just a question of how much they come out ahead,” said Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst for the nonpartisan site Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

Democrats say they are determined to blunt Trump’s push for more red seats, even if they cannot stop it. As Republicans defend a 219-212 House majority with four vacancies, even small shifts in the map could tip control of Congress in 2026…

Share this:

“Texas Democrats to return home for second special session, ABC13 sources confirm”

ABC13:

ABC13 has confirmed with multiple sources that House Democrats will return to Texas.

Eyewitness News has not confirmed the date, but we do know that Democrats believe they’ve accomplished their mission by killing the first special session and by raising national awareness about the mid-decade redistricting effort.

It is unclear which day they will be in Austin at the Capitol, but they stress that they will push for Hill Country flooding relief to be the priority.

Share this:

Good Government Group Common Cause Will Bless Time-Limited Mid-Decade Re-redistricting, with Conditions

Announcement via email:

Common Cause today reaffirmed its commitment to fair, people-powered democracy, making clear that independent redistricting commissions remain the gold standard for ending partisan gerrymandering.

However, as political leaders in states like Texas are imposing mid-decade partisan maps to distort the will of the people ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, the organization announced it will closely evaluate, but not automatically condemn, countermeasures to these actions….

Common Cause’s position follows decades of advocacy against partisan gerrymandering, including taking Common Cause v. Rucho to the Supreme Court, drafting provisions in the Freedom to Vote Act to ban partisan gerrymandering, and championing independent redistricting commissions nationwide.

Common Cause’s Six Fairness Criteria for Mid-Decade Redistricting 

  1. Proportionality: Any mid-decade redistricting should be a targeted response proportional to the threat posed by mid-decade gerrymanders in other states.
  2. Public participation: Any redistricting must include meaningful public participation, whether through ballot initiatives or open public processes.
  3. Racial equity: Redistricting must not further racial discrimination or dilute the political voice of Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian American, and Pacific Islander, or other communities of color.
  4. Federal reform: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, including provisions banning mid-decade redistricting and partisan gerrymandering.
  5. Endorsement of independent redistricting: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse citizen-led independent redistricting commissions as the long-term solution.
  6. Time-limited: Any new redistricting maps must expire following the 2030 Census, which counts all people in our country, and be replaced through the regular decennial redistricting process. 

Share this:

“Texas Republicans dare Democrats to stay out of state another month”

WaPo:

Texas Republicans said Tuesday that they would kick off a second special legislative session Friday to redraw the state’s congressional maps in favor of the GOP, putting pressure on absent Democrats to quickly return to the state or commit to remaining away for another month.

Dozens of Democrats in the Texas House fled the state last week to block a Republican plan to shift five congressional districts sharply to the right ahead of next year’s midterm elections. They have said they are committed to staying away long enough to kill the measure during a special session slated to last until as late as Aug. 19.

Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R) said Tuesday that if Democrats do not return by Friday, Republican lawmakers will end the special session that day. Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said he would immediately call a new 30-day special session, which Burrows would gavel in later Friday.

The move essentially restarts the clock, forcing Democrats to decide whether they’re willing to stay away for another four weeks — or longer. Democrats have not said whether they would stay away beyond the current special session. Abbott said Tuesday that he will keep calling special sessions until the Democrats come back….

Share this:

“Why a gerrymandering critic wants to toss out California’s maps”

California Playbook:

Sara Sadhwani is proud of her work on California’s independent redistricting commission, but now she wants voters to tear up the maps she and her colleagues spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours crafting.

The Pomona political science professor grabbed political insiders’ attention when she backed state Democrats’ move to counter Texas Republicans’ planned gerrymander with one of their own.

Sadhwani, one of the commission’s Democratic members in 2020, believes partisan gerrymandering should be outlawed nationwide. But she argued democratic institutions have been so weakened by President Donald Trump’s administration that slanting California’s maps toward Democrats is necessary to push back on a Republican power grab — which is why she’s inviting voters to override her own work.

“These are extraordinary times,” she told Playbook. “At this moment, I’m not so worried about California’s democracy.”

You got a lot of attention for calling for the maps to be redrawn. Can you talk me through your thinking?

First of all, I’ll say that I stand by the maps that the commission drew. They are fair, they are competitive, and those are the kinds of maps that we should have for congressional districts across the nation. We expanded opportunities for Latinos, in particular, to elect their candidates of choice in ways that the Legislature never bothered to do in California. I’m incredibly proud of the work that we did in the largest state in the nation.

That being said, not all of the states are playing by the same set of rules. Certainly, we see the showdown happening in Texas. President Trump has talked about getting the FBI involved to get Democratic members back to the Texas Legislature. These are extraordinary times. At this moment, I’m not so worried about California’s democracy. We have strong democratic institutions here in the state of California, but I’m also a political scientist, and at the national level, what we’ve seen over the last 10 or even 20 years is a backsliding and a decay of our institutions that should worry all of us….

Share this:

“Republican Party of Texas sets stage to censure members who stepped out of line in likely bid to block them from primary ballot”

Texas Tribune:

The executive committee of the Republican Party of Texas was in Austin on Saturday to finalize its first-ever legislative review, outlining a list of censurable offenses that some within the Texas GOP want to use to block certain House Republicans from the 2026 primary ballot.

Those Republicans, made up of delegates chosen by county parties, want to use the list to hold their elected officials to the state party’s priorities. But others see it as an illegal effort to deny officials from the primary ballot if they don’t follow the most fervent conservative activists’ aims 100% of the time.

Texas GOP Chair Abraham George told The Blast that he and House Speaker Dustin Burrows, who spoke to members of the SREC at a separate meeting with Gov. Greg Abbott earlier Saturday morning, have not discussed the party’s censure effort, a new “accountability” mechanism the state party approved at its 2024 convention. Still, Burrows likely knew the SREC members would be approving a hit list that could be used to keep “RINOs” from the ballot….

Share this:

“How Alabama’s historic congressional map still faces uncertainty amid redistricting battles”

Al.com:

In this sweltering political August, redistricting has become the hot fight of the moment.

It’s driving Texas Democrats to flee their state, hunkering down in Illinois while Republican Gov. Greg Abbott threatens to have lawmakers removed from office. It’s throwing a Black-majority district in Louisiana into limbo, igniting fears that the U.S. Supreme Court could soon unravel what remains of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act.

And in Alabama, after years of courtroom showdowns, a long-fought redistricting battle appears to have reached a moment of resolution — at least for now. A three-judge federal panel last week ruled unanimously that Alabama must use the map drawn up by a court-appointed special master until 2030.

While it is unclear whether Alabama officials will appeal the latest ruling, it marked the second time the same Alabama Northern District panel ruled that the GOP-drawn map, with just one majority Black district, was unconstitutional and in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The legal fight may not be over and experts warn that a Supreme Court decision in a Louisiana case could still send ripples through Alabama….

The Louisiana case has the potential to affect Alabama where Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains a key force that led to a redrawn 2nd district.

“It would not surprise me to see the Supreme Court hold any further appeals in the Alabama redistricting litigation pending a decision in the Louisiana case,” said Richard Hasen, a political science professor and election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, said before Thursday’s ruling by the three-judge panel in the Alabama case. “If Section 2 falls or is limited in the Louisiana case, it would affect the rights and remedies in Alabama as well.”…

Jeff Wice, chair of the New York City Bar Association Election Law Committee and a professor at New York Law School, said he believes the Alabama case is different from Louisiana and from Texas. He said that in Alabama, the conservative court ruled that the state’s congressional map clearly diluted the Black population’s vote.

“In Louisiana, they redrew their congressional map to also satisfy a requirement to create a second Black (majority) district,” Wice said. “But by doing so, the legislature created other districts that seemed to separate white votes from Black votes, and to be able to protect the incumbent Republicans including (U.S. House) Speaker Mike Johnson.”

He added, “the question there is becoming – to what extent is the use of race required if the prevailing factor is politics? Louisiana would not be having this problem if politics were not playing a role and if they simply did as Alabama’s court did in simply drawing two Black majority districts without politics getting in the way.”…

Share this:

“Inside Democrats’ risky gambit to ‘fight fire with fire’ over election maps”

WaPo deep dive:

Their exodus, coordinated with top Democrats outside Texas, is the latest flash point in a rapidly spreading fight over election maps — embodying Democrats’ newly combative posture on redistricting. After Texas Republicans initiated an unusual mid-decade effort to redraw their maps at President Donald Trump’s urging, state Democrats have staged a high-profile protest; liberal governors have moved to retaliate with new maps of their own; and many onetime gerrymandering critics have joined the cause. “Fight fire with fire,” as many Democrats have recently put it.

But the party is facing an uphill climb and risks of a letdown. Texas Democrats are likely to stall but not ultimately prevent Republicans from enacting a new map that would add five new U.S. House seats that voted for Trump by double-digit percentages. In several blue states, Democrats must clear legal hurdles that their red-state counterparts don’t face as both parties try to overhaul election maps beyond Texas.

“Fundamentally, this has the potential to be the gerrymandering apocalypse that may have been inevitable given that for both parties, the ends have increasingly justified the means,” said David Wasserman, senior elections analyst with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report with Amy Walter. Republicans are more likely to get their way, Wasserman said, even if Democrats are able to offset GOP gains in Texas.

The outcome could have major implications for 2026 and the final two years of Trump’s term. Republicans are defending a 219-212 House majority, with four vacancies, and even marginal shifts could be pivotal….

Share this:

Alabama Dodges Bail-in

Yesterday, the three-judge district court in the Alabama congressional redistricting litigation declined to bail-in the State to the VRA’s preclearance regime. You can find the district court’s decision here.

Recall that the district court had previously found that Alabama’s 2023 defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Allen v. Milligan constituted intentional discrimination. Based on the district court’s obvious frustration with Alabama’s recalcitrance, it appeared that the State was a prime candidate for bail-in under Section 3(c) of the VRA. Moreover, plaintiffs’ bail-in request was limited: only for congressional redistricting and only through the post-2030 redistricting map. Bail-in was designed to stop the game of whack-a-mole that was Southern defiance of federal court decrees. Unfortunately, Alabama dodged the hammer once again.

For prior analysis of bail-in in this case, see here, here, and here. Here’s some takeaways from the district court’s opinion and recent bail-in litigation overall:

1.         The district court’s fifteen-page opinion is mostly a summary of the litigation and last week’s bail-in hearing. Its analysis of the bail-in issue is cursory. The court sidestepped contentious questions about whether multiple constitutional violations are necessary for bail-in; whether Shaw violations count; and whether constitutional violations by political subdivisions are part of the inquiry. Instead, the district court relied heavily on its retention of jurisdiction over the case through the 2030 redistricting cycle and its injunction that Alabama must use the Special Master’s remedial maps. It observed that this “largely obviate[d]” the need to delve into the “intrusive waters” of preclearance.  Indeed, the district court’s approach recalls the Fourth Circuit’s minimal analysis of the bail-in question in McCrory, the North Carolina voter-suppression case.

Furthermore, the district court appears to conflate the question of retaining jurisdiction and bail-in. For example, the district court’s opinion could be read to express concern about dealing with the case through the entire 2030 redistricting process—that is, through 2041. But that is emphatically not how bail-in under Section 3(c) would have worked. Alabama would have been required to preclear the first map that it drew after the 2030 Census. So long as Alabama met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that it had not intentionally discriminated and had not retrogressed Black voting strength, the bail-in would have ended. Any Section 2 or Shaw claims would have been heard by a separate court. And the bail-in would not have applied to a 2030 mid-decade redistricting either.

To be clear, some of this confusion could be attributable to plaintiffs’ back-up request for the court to retain jurisdiction. But the substantive standard and process for how preclearance would work under Section 3(c) is distinct from how the same court hearing a potential Section 2 case in the 2030s would work.

2.         Although the district court declined to bail-in Alabama, it did mandate that it use the Special Master’s remedial map until the 2030 redistricting cycle. Thus, for now, Alabama cannot take part in the potential wave of mid-decade redistricting that might occur. However, Alabama has appealed the underlying merits determination to the Supreme Court, and with the Callais re-argument next Term, it is possible Alabama may be freed from this permanent injunction.

3.        The lightning bolt of the Callais re-argument order looms large here. The short time frame between last week’s hearing and yesterday’s decision hints at a district court that thinks it’s gone as far as it can go without being rebuked by the Supreme Court.

4.         Finally, one cannot help but wonder what might have been in these post-Shelby County bail-in suits if the Supreme Court had not become considerably more conservative during the first Trump administration. Put differently, if the Senate had not successfully blockaded Merrick Garland or if Justice Ginsburg had retired in a timely manner, the preclearance regime might have been partially rebuilt. We have seen district courts issue intentional discrimination findings against two States that were previously fully covered (Alabama and twice against Texas) and two States that were previously partially covered (Florida and North Carolina). But when it came to pull the trigger on Section 3(c) relief, the lower courts blinked.

Perhaps one upshot of yesterday’s decision is that bail-in’s constitutionality will continue to escape Supreme Court review. Although I still believe that this is the best post-Shelby County vehicle for addressing Section 3(c)’s constitutionality, one need not look far for other voting/civil rights cases—such as Brnovich—in which an aggressive litigation posture ended up backfiring. We will have to wait and see what remains of the Voting Rights Act after next Term, which is shaping up to be monumental.

Share this:

The Media’s Unfortunate Greater Interest in the Texas Redistricting Car Wreck than the Supreme Court’s Slow Poisoning of the Voting Rights Act

I’ve written about two big election stories this week, the newly ignited redistricting wars starting in Texas and the Supreme Court’s strong signal that it could kill off the Voting Rights Act Section 2 by next June. Judged by my conversations with those in the media, Texas redistricting is the bigger story, but I think the VRA is—especially coming on the 60th anniversary of the passage of the Act.

It’s not surprising that the media is more attracted to the Texas story. It happens right now with great visuals of fleeing legislators and threats to bring in the FBI, and Democratic governors vowing to engage in tit-for-tat warfare. The harms to democracy are easy for everyone to see.

But when the Supreme Court acts, it’s very hard to make exciting for the public. A cryptic briefing order issued at the start of a summer weekend does not make good visuals. You don’t get sound bites from Justices Alito and Sotomayor. The action will take place in dense, technical briefs, over months.

So when the Supreme Court kills another aspect of democracy and does it with slow poison, it is much harder to get the public to pay attention. But the lasting cost to our democracy is likely to be far greater than the redistricting skirmishes happening in prime time.

Share this: