Several times recently, I’ve expressed opposition to Illinois Democrats attempting to squeeze another seat out of their state by drawing a 15D-2R gerrymander. This has been mostly out of concern that such a redraw could jeopardize existing seats, and from the belief that the existing map is already a maximalist gerrymander.
However, I recently took a closer look at the map and found that several Democratic-leaning areas had been excluded from Democratic districts. And the current Illinois map still has one district – the 7th – that is not taking part in the gerrymander at all (at Harris +64), and could be unpacked. Therefore, I decided to see if it actually was possible to draw a 15D-2R map in Illinois where all the Democratic seats are at least as safe as they currently are, if not more so.
And? It actually is possible… but it requires a pretty epic baconmander of Chicago to achieve it. If you haven’t eaten bacon recently, I’d suggest grabbing some before looking at this map, because the map certainly involves a hell of a lot of it.
I was able to slightly shore up some of the closer districts, with Sorenson’s district moving from Harris +5 to +7, Underwood’s district moving from +5 to +10, and Casten’s district moving from +6 to +10. Budzinski’s, Foster’s, and Krishnamoorthi’s districts see very little partisan change.
Darin LaHood’s district, unsurprisingly, is the one that gets shredded on this map. The Republican areas of his hometown of Peoria are mostly added to Mary Miller’s already deep-red district, while a few of them are added to Jonathan Jackson’s district (which now stretches almost to Galesburg). His district is still 50% Black and Harris +24. This is achieved by pushing Danny Davis’s 7th south to take in some heavily Republican suburban areas like Frankfort, Homer Glen, and New Lenox, but it’s still Harris +30. Rockford is added to Krishnamoorthi’s district, while the portion of LaHood’s district along the Wisconsin border is included in Brad Schneider’s Waukegan-based district (which now includes Evanston as well and is still Harris +20). The rest of Chicago’s northern and northwestern suburbs are baconmandered out from the North Side.
Now, I don’t know if Illinois Democrats will have the stomach to draw a map like this. It’s significantly more gerrymandered even than the current map – the current map has Democratic districts stretching from Chicagoland to “only” Danville and Spring Valley, while this map has districts stretching all the way to the Galesburg area and the Mississippi River. But a map like this is clearly possible, and should definitely be considered by Illinois Democrats as a way to counteract Republican gerrymandering in other states.
There is no LaHood's district on this map. It's been dismantled so comprehensively that there's no district even remotely similar to it.
The new district is one of the ones stretching from the North Side of Chicago out to the Republican-leaning exurbs. It has virtually no overlap with LaHood's current district, and is Harris +28.
Am I reading this correctly that you have the seat you labeled 6, stretch from the south part of downtown Chicago to just outside Davenport and Galesburg?
I’m not surprised it’s possible given how Democratic IL is. But it involves lots of slivers of Chicago mixed with lots of farm country.
Our current map is already a strong gerrymander. I like Brennan gives us an F rating. (Which is the lowest, so no penalty for being worse)
But I’d rather take all the money, time, and energy and fund races in IA and WI to flip a seat. Would be better for democracy.
How much additional moeny would this cost? The main impact I can think of is primaries, which I'm guessing could easily get expensive and messy, but how much national money would that siphon? Additional costs could arise because petitioning season ends on November 4, so that would likely need to be extended and candidates would need to spend money introducing themselves to unfamiliar voters, but again would that require a lot of national money that would have otherwise gone elsewhere?
Chicago $ and Chicago volunteers are always involved with WI and IA races since ours usually aren’t competitive. Plus the actual Members & staffs would we need to spend more time meeting with their new constituents.
Why are those two goals (targeting WI & IA seats) and redistricting IL mutually exclusive? As far as I can tell, IL legislators can just draw new districts, right?
The primary process has already started. Not sure how much state money would be needed to redo it. Plus fight the lawsuits against it.
Seats don’t open up in IL often. The primaries for Durbin, Kelly, Schakowsky, Davis, and Krishnamoorthi’s seats are all going to be expensive in terms of $, attention, and volunteer time.
This is the best approach I've seen for an Illinois 15-2 map.
However, I would still be antsy about Democrats adopting it. Ultimately, in a Red Wave election, Republicans could win up to 8 seats (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, and 13). If demographic dynamics shifted things more, it's conceivable they could win 9 seats, with the 9th becoming vulnerable.
I also think so much of this redistricting drama is ill focused. Political opinions are not static, and we've seen allegedly "safe" seats for one party become "safe" seats for the other in a handful of election cycles. I feel it would be more prudent to keep the IL map 14-3 and stay more secure in the long-term. But these ideas might be useful come 2031, when Democrats will hopefully find a way to draw a 14-2 map.
A map like this would have been laughable prior to this year, but we're now seeing maximalist baconmanders becoming reality all over the country, pieces of major cities being connected to rural counties over a hundred miles away. Politicians finally figured out redistricting isn't a complicated process of balancing a bunch of competing interests and requirements, it's literally just a button they can press any time to have more representatives, so why not press it?
Gerrymandering has been around for a long time but we're in the endgame now where it's being directed nationally by the president. Gotta fight back everywhere we can.
I'm curious what kind of endorsements he'll get. Warren (unsurprisingly) along with Neal, McGovern, Trahan, Clark, and Keating have all already endorsed Markey
Probably moderate-establishment types like Jake Auchincloss and many of the sitting Reps. that backed Kennedy in 2020 (i.e. Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, Pete Aguilar, Beto O'Rourke and Elissa Slotkin)
On his website it's usual issues like healthcare and affordable housing, but there's one section saying "retire on your own terms"...but moulton is trying to force Markey into retirement?
Moulton is only 46 and Markey is just shy of 80. Why not just wait for an open primary? Primarying Markey just comes across as someone overly ambitious not waiting their turn (a la Kennedy). The dude already ran for President for Pete's sake.
Because they won't leave until they're taken out on a stretcher. Feinstein held on beyond the point of not even knowing what she had said on a question. The baton needs to be passed. The fact that Mills " fits Schumer’s ideal mold" is another piece of the problem. Democrats learned nothing from the Biden fiasco. They don't need to be promoting a freshman who would be sworn in at 80, regardless of her record of experience. It's irresponsible and, frankly, unethical.
I think Moulton knows that in an open primary he would face some challenges, which he might personally see as more difficult.
From his perspective he got into office by defeating an incumbent that the party establishment backed despite there being a reason voters might prefer someone else. He would see this as an analogous situation. It also fits his own personal flaws: he likes everything to be about him, he needs the spotlight. An open primary would be crowded, this will likely be just the two of them and Moulton gets a lot of extra attention.
Also an open primary would have a lot of top tier competitors. Pressley would hopefully run. Auchincloss would likely run as well. Depending on the year we could see Healey, Trahan, and/or Campbell run as well. While I am eternally skeptical that she would opt to leave the job of mayor, it's still possible that Wu might decide to run in the future. That kind of field would be difficult for someone like Moulton, and would be difficult in particular for his ego as he would not be the center of attention.
Yeah it's a dumb move on Moulton's part. He must want out of the House so badly that he's willing to wage an all-or-nothing long shot gamble on a crowded primary race against an incumbent.
I'm not from MA and while I'd prefer Ayanna Pressley over either of them at this point. If the choice is between Markey and Moulton. I'm for Markey every time.
Sanders is 84, Grassley 92. And they’re still going strong. Depends on the individual. As long as he’s physically and mentally healthy, I don’t see a problem with him running.
I've said it before but I'll say it again. I really want Markey to step aside and let someone younger take his place. I'm tired of octogenarians clinging onto office indefinitely. But if the choice is between Markey and Moulton, I'm supporting Markey 100%. Moulton is terrible.
I'm curious what Pressley does now. She's avoided endorsing Markey and I felt she was leaving the door cracked open even if she probably wouldn't run. Does she endorse Markey, continue to avoid endorsing anyone, or does she jump in too? A three way primary would be hard to predict. Nominally it would help Markey as the incumbent, but Pressley and him would be fighting over the progressive base.
Why would avoiding endorsement be beneficial? Unless she's seriously considering running. Couldn't she endorse, and then if Markey drops out she runs instead?
I feel MA's 10,000 signature requirement makes this unlikely, but it makes me wonder if they're trying to pull the old last minute switcheroo where the incumbent announces their retirement right before the filing deadline and their preferred successor is the only one who can get their signatures in on time.
I could see that. Who would be Markey's preferred successor? I always got the feeling that Pressley was a Warren protege. Although that doesn't stop her from being his preference anyway.
Adelita, congratulations!!!!!!!! Good job, we are behind you and will help you fight. this reminds of the time, Obama was stalled to place a judge on SCOTUS. HEY REPUBLICANS GET YOUR A** to MOVING AND SWEAR I THIS LEGALLY ELECTED CANDIDATE !!!!!!!!
Argument on the Louisiana VRA case took place today. One initial take:
First take out of court: The court appeared ready to make it more difficult for Voting Rights Act vote-dilution challenges to lead to additional majority-minority districts, but a majority also seemed likely to reject Louisiana’s argument that all “race-based redistricting” is unconstitutional.
Yeah, MSM and Marc Elias' Democracy Docket are fear mongering the worst-case scenario of this decision -- which COULD happen but reading between the lines, may not be Dobbs 2.0 (where red states immediately started banning abortion within days or hours of the decision being handed down).
SCOTUS shouldn't have agreed to re-hear the case, but when you have a 6-3 MAGA conservative majority, the rules are thrown out the window.
Marc Elias always wants people to prepare for the worst-case scenario, so we're ready to deal with it, and as we've seen recently, worst-case scenarios are not unlikely and decisions that seemed worse than the worst-case scenario have been perpetrated by this Supreme Court.
It’s possible that SCOTUS doesn’t drop their ruling until June, leaving little time to redraw, and that not every southern state that can redraw does so.
- Queue up an initiative in CO to adjust the redistricting process
- Do whatever possible to fast-track a challenge to the WI maps under the new SCOWIS majority
- Assuming there's no time and/or interest in a redraw in Georgia before 2026, focus on flipping the governorship or enough legislative seats to block a redraw (not sure what the law is here; obviously if a simple majority can pass new maps that can't be vetoed, as in NC, we'd be out of luck)
Dismantling the VRA is literally the basic reason for Robert’s’ career, but I suspect he will split the apple again to further weaken it rather than gut it… This time.
Again, it feels like a Rorschach test, but one armchair political commentator I occasionally check on Twitter seems to think they could possibly end Section 2 private litigation (i.e. only governmental litigation in the future). Another thinks they remand with instructions against racial gerrymandering and I hope they take that route.
It’s always been my thinking that they will issue a narrow opinion only about the second MM district in Louisiana but not have a broader opinion that totally guts the VRA. This is Roberts’ safety valve when he sees a lot of public pressure that could further erode the public perception of the court. The advocacy of voting rights groups is to be commended on this front.
If they were following the law and their own precedent then they would rule with maintaining the additional MM district. But that seems highly unlikely.
I expect a narrow ruling (possibly before the normal June timeline) but wouldn’t be shocked if they went nuclear. But again I think it will be narrow.
seems unlikely they would have lined it up for rehearing if that were the case. I think we'll get a broad rule that prohibits cracking but also prohibits drawing districts like the 2nd LA one where you basically had to affirmatively racially gerrymander to get to a 2nd seat.
Yeah, I think the likeliest thing to come out of the case is ordering that the district be redrawn. With no Purcell “stay.” And I think the opinion will be issued sooner rather than later. Probably not long after the new year. Unless they have 5 votes to gut section 2, in which case the dissenters will make sure it will take longer.
Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the court’s opinion in Milligan, appeared to suggest that the Milligan case should not necessarily dictate the outcome of the Louisiana case. “That case,” Roberts said, “took the existing precedent as a given.” And, he continued, “it was a case in which we were considering Alabama’s particular challenge based on … what turned out to be an improper evidentiary showing.”
Justice Elena Kagan countered that Alabama had “made several arguments that we specifically rejected” in Milligan. “And in the answers that you just gave to me,” she told Aguiñaga, “it seems to me that you repeated each and every one of those arguments that we rejected.”
Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R) announced Wednesday his office approved the referendum petition. But he also put an additional hurdle in organizers’ way, claiming the signatures already collected by voters are invalid and constitute a “misdemeanor election offense.” Hoskins said his approval was required before organizers could begin collecting signatures.
They should. MO Republicans don't want the Respect MO Voters amendment or the veto referendum of their congressional maps on the ballot.
Because if the amendment gets on the ballot, voters will reject the new maps and vote for stripping power from the legislature. And their constantly overriding popular voter-initiated statutes (as well as constitutional amendments) will be over.
"People Not Politicians," as mentioned by David in yesterday's digest, has an Actblue Express donation account, and I'd suggest all consider contributing whatever they can.
No major national groups are giving anything of note, also per David and Politico.
People Not Politicians, as noted by David, is the group collecting signatures.
I am interested to see how the referendum plays out if it qualifies. Given that Prop 50 is seemingly in good shape in CA, will other states default to their own partisan baselines, or will the (very valid!) arguments around who started this particular fight and for what particular goals carry any weight?
Good point. Hector Mujica could run for local office or state government to get a start before running for the US Senate.
Then again, with the odds of Democrats likely not to win the Senate race, as long as it’s not an Alvin Greene type (in the SC Senate race against Jim DeMint), anything goes I suppose.
Considering what the Trump Administration is doing with its agenda towards Venezuela nowadays, it would be an interesting development for Mujica to have a Senate campaign in FL. Gives the Latino vote in the state more choices.
But I also really don’t know much about Mujica aside from the announcement per the link MPC shared.
A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from conducting mass federal layoffs during the government shutdown, siding with unions that have argued that the firings were illegal.
VT-SD-Orleans - Republican Vermont State Sen. Samuel Douglass was in the disgustingly bigoted Young Republicans text messages that were recently leaked; Republican Gov. Phil Scott is asking for Douglass to resign.
Map of Virginia with 9-2 Dem gerrymander - the catch is that all of the districts (apart from the 5th) have generally decent shapes and are similar to that of the current maps
I don’t think it’ll be that bad to be honest. I don’t see the GOP getting rid of every VRA sear they can. They’re facing internal resistance for non-VRA redraws.
And SCOTUS probably won’t rule until June 2026, when it’s too late to affect the midterms.
We need to win the house more than once. We need to win it next year and hold it for 2028 while regaining a trifecta. Otherwise we're powerless to fix all the problems being created right now.
It's important to remember that we need to position ourselves for more than the next election.
Then Democrats should counter with redraws of their own. 2026 should focus on repealing redistricting commissions, gaining trifectas, and more favorable courts.
Vance on public outrage over the "I love Hitler" group chat: "Grow up! Focus on the real issues. Don't focus on what kids say in group chats... The reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys — they tell edgy, offensive jokes. That's what kids do.""
"Christopher Hale
@chrisjollyhale
The ring leaders of the conversation are two years younger than Vance."
Frankly, I find explicitly anti-establishment candidates just exhausting to listen to. How about instead of tearing down the brand your about to run on, run a positive campaign all about your brand? I know Planter has done some of the latter, but too much of the former for my own taste.
The brand that is disapproved by your own base and is so corrupt that they are fundraising for your opponent in the primary? Running on your own brand is surefire way to lose.
I wouldn't call the establishment backing Mills over Platner corrupt in any sense of the word, and by "brand", I mean both the Democratic Party as a whole, and a candidate's personal appeal. A candidate can run on their own personal brand without completely rejecting the brand of their party.
What are they waiting for?
Godot, perhaps
Several times recently, I’ve expressed opposition to Illinois Democrats attempting to squeeze another seat out of their state by drawing a 15D-2R gerrymander. This has been mostly out of concern that such a redraw could jeopardize existing seats, and from the belief that the existing map is already a maximalist gerrymander.
However, I recently took a closer look at the map and found that several Democratic-leaning areas had been excluded from Democratic districts. And the current Illinois map still has one district – the 7th – that is not taking part in the gerrymander at all (at Harris +64), and could be unpacked. Therefore, I decided to see if it actually was possible to draw a 15D-2R map in Illinois where all the Democratic seats are at least as safe as they currently are, if not more so.
And? It actually is possible… but it requires a pretty epic baconmander of Chicago to achieve it. If you haven’t eaten bacon recently, I’d suggest grabbing some before looking at this map, because the map certainly involves a hell of a lot of it.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/db4ab6f5-baa8-49c3-ad1e-92a2339db9fc
I was able to slightly shore up some of the closer districts, with Sorenson’s district moving from Harris +5 to +7, Underwood’s district moving from +5 to +10, and Casten’s district moving from +6 to +10. Budzinski’s, Foster’s, and Krishnamoorthi’s districts see very little partisan change.
Darin LaHood’s district, unsurprisingly, is the one that gets shredded on this map. The Republican areas of his hometown of Peoria are mostly added to Mary Miller’s already deep-red district, while a few of them are added to Jonathan Jackson’s district (which now stretches almost to Galesburg). His district is still 50% Black and Harris +24. This is achieved by pushing Danny Davis’s 7th south to take in some heavily Republican suburban areas like Frankfort, Homer Glen, and New Lenox, but it’s still Harris +30. Rockford is added to Krishnamoorthi’s district, while the portion of LaHood’s district along the Wisconsin border is included in Brad Schneider’s Waukegan-based district (which now includes Evanston as well and is still Harris +20). The rest of Chicago’s northern and northwestern suburbs are baconmandered out from the North Side.
Now, I don’t know if Illinois Democrats will have the stomach to draw a map like this. It’s significantly more gerrymandered even than the current map – the current map has Democratic districts stretching from Chicagoland to “only” Danville and Spring Valley, while this map has districts stretching all the way to the Galesburg area and the Mississippi River. But a map like this is clearly possible, and should definitely be considered by Illinois Democrats as a way to counteract Republican gerrymandering in other states.
What would LaHood's district be?
There is no LaHood's district on this map. It's been dismantled so comprehensively that there's no district even remotely similar to it.
The new district is one of the ones stretching from the North Side of Chicago out to the Republican-leaning exurbs. It has virtually no overlap with LaHood's current district, and is Harris +28.
Am I reading this correctly that you have the seat you labeled 6, stretch from the south part of downtown Chicago to just outside Davenport and Galesburg?
I’m not surprised it’s possible given how Democratic IL is. But it involves lots of slivers of Chicago mixed with lots of farm country.
Our current map is already a strong gerrymander. I like Brennan gives us an F rating. (Which is the lowest, so no penalty for being worse)
But I’d rather take all the money, time, and energy and fund races in IA and WI to flip a seat. Would be better for democracy.
You are indeed reading the map correctly.
Thanks for doing the exercise. I know that your doing it to see if it’s possible, but it would be terrible.
It’s already hard enough to get Members of Congress to represent their constituents’ interests. Your map would make it even worse.
How much additional moeny would this cost? The main impact I can think of is primaries, which I'm guessing could easily get expensive and messy, but how much national money would that siphon? Additional costs could arise because petitioning season ends on November 4, so that would likely need to be extended and candidates would need to spend money introducing themselves to unfamiliar voters, but again would that require a lot of national money that would have otherwise gone elsewhere?
Chicago $ and Chicago volunteers are always involved with WI and IA races since ours usually aren’t competitive. Plus the actual Members & staffs would we need to spend more time meeting with their new constituents.
Why are those two goals (targeting WI & IA seats) and redistricting IL mutually exclusive? As far as I can tell, IL legislators can just draw new districts, right?
The primary process has already started. Not sure how much state money would be needed to redo it. Plus fight the lawsuits against it.
Seats don’t open up in IL often. The primaries for Durbin, Kelly, Schakowsky, Davis, and Krishnamoorthi’s seats are all going to be expensive in terms of $, attention, and volunteer time.
This is the best approach I've seen for an Illinois 15-2 map.
However, I would still be antsy about Democrats adopting it. Ultimately, in a Red Wave election, Republicans could win up to 8 seats (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, and 13). If demographic dynamics shifted things more, it's conceivable they could win 9 seats, with the 9th becoming vulnerable.
I also think so much of this redistricting drama is ill focused. Political opinions are not static, and we've seen allegedly "safe" seats for one party become "safe" seats for the other in a handful of election cycles. I feel it would be more prudent to keep the IL map 14-3 and stay more secure in the long-term. But these ideas might be useful come 2031, when Democrats will hopefully find a way to draw a 14-2 map.
That's amazing! We need abgin to come and have a look.
A map like this would have been laughable prior to this year, but we're now seeing maximalist baconmanders becoming reality all over the country, pieces of major cities being connected to rural counties over a hundred miles away. Politicians finally figured out redistricting isn't a complicated process of balancing a bunch of competing interests and requirements, it's literally just a button they can press any time to have more representatives, so why not press it?
Gerrymandering has been around for a long time but we're in the endgame now where it's being directed nationally by the president. Gotta fight back everywhere we can.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) is in for Senate, challenging Markey
Hope Markey takes him to the cleaners.
if kennedy wasn't an upgrade how the heck could Moulton be an upgrade? Dude's been grandstanding longer than I've been out of college.
Edited, as I agree with you, but my tone above suggests otherwise.
I wish Kennedy won, he would be much better than whatever Moulton and Auchincloss are. Auchincloss and Pressley may jump in if Markey drops out.
Is there any indication that Markey may drop out?
Absolutely none that I've seen. It's always possible, but I'd be decently surprised if he did so.
I'm curious what kind of endorsements he'll get. Warren (unsurprisingly) along with Neal, McGovern, Trahan, Clark, and Keating have all already endorsed Markey
Probably moderate-establishment types like Jake Auchincloss and many of the sitting Reps. that backed Kennedy in 2020 (i.e. Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, Pete Aguilar, Beto O'Rourke and Elissa Slotkin)
Is Moulton campaigning on anything besides age?
On his website it's usual issues like healthcare and affordable housing, but there's one section saying "retire on your own terms"...but moulton is trying to force Markey into retirement?
Who will run in the Massachusetts 6th to replace Moulton?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Massachusetts#District_6
Some prospective candidates, courtesy of Wikipedia and their sources.
Probably going to be more liberal in the end than Moulton.
Hopefully.
The one case where I am NOT for generational change. Glad we can get rid of Moulton altogether. Good riddance.
Moulton is only 46 and Markey is just shy of 80. Why not just wait for an open primary? Primarying Markey just comes across as someone overly ambitious not waiting their turn (a la Kennedy). The dude already ran for President for Pete's sake.
Because they won't leave until they're taken out on a stretcher. Feinstein held on beyond the point of not even knowing what she had said on a question. The baton needs to be passed. The fact that Mills " fits Schumer’s ideal mold" is another piece of the problem. Democrats learned nothing from the Biden fiasco. They don't need to be promoting a freshman who would be sworn in at 80, regardless of her record of experience. It's irresponsible and, frankly, unethical.
I think Moulton knows that in an open primary he would face some challenges, which he might personally see as more difficult.
From his perspective he got into office by defeating an incumbent that the party establishment backed despite there being a reason voters might prefer someone else. He would see this as an analogous situation. It also fits his own personal flaws: he likes everything to be about him, he needs the spotlight. An open primary would be crowded, this will likely be just the two of them and Moulton gets a lot of extra attention.
Also an open primary would have a lot of top tier competitors. Pressley would hopefully run. Auchincloss would likely run as well. Depending on the year we could see Healey, Trahan, and/or Campbell run as well. While I am eternally skeptical that she would opt to leave the job of mayor, it's still possible that Wu might decide to run in the future. That kind of field would be difficult for someone like Moulton, and would be difficult in particular for his ego as he would not be the center of attention.
Yeah it's a dumb move on Moulton's part. He must want out of the House so badly that he's willing to wage an all-or-nothing long shot gamble on a crowded primary race against an incumbent.
So, Markey will be about 85 at the end of his next term. No one sees a problem with that? Didn't the Diane Feinstein debacle teach us anything? Sad.
I'm not from MA and while I'd prefer Ayanna Pressley over either of them at this point. If the choice is between Markey and Moulton. I'm for Markey every time.
Sanders is 84, Grassley 92. And they’re still going strong. Depends on the individual. As long as he’s physically and mentally healthy, I don’t see a problem with him running.
All thing being equal, I'd like both of them to retire, too, though.
I think "going strong" may be a tad bit generous re: Grassley.
Or, for that matter, the Ruth Bader Ginsburg debacle. And the Joe Biden debacle.
I've said it before but I'll say it again. I really want Markey to step aside and let someone younger take his place. I'm tired of octogenarians clinging onto office indefinitely. But if the choice is between Markey and Moulton, I'm supporting Markey 100%. Moulton is terrible.
I'm curious what Pressley does now. She's avoided endorsing Markey and I felt she was leaving the door cracked open even if she probably wouldn't run. Does she endorse Markey, continue to avoid endorsing anyone, or does she jump in too? A three way primary would be hard to predict. Nominally it would help Markey as the incumbent, but Pressley and him would be fighting over the progressive base.
I think she slyly avoids endorsing and waits to see how it goes.
Why would avoiding endorsement be beneficial? Unless she's seriously considering running. Couldn't she endorse, and then if Markey drops out she runs instead?
I feel MA's 10,000 signature requirement makes this unlikely, but it makes me wonder if they're trying to pull the old last minute switcheroo where the incumbent announces their retirement right before the filing deadline and their preferred successor is the only one who can get their signatures in on time.
I could see that. Who would be Markey's preferred successor? I always got the feeling that Pressley was a Warren protege. Although that doesn't stop her from being his preference anyway.
My guess it would be Pressley because she's closest in ideology, but personal factors are often just as important and I don't have a sense of that.
Lol amazing, the one single person I wouldn't want to replace Markey
Adelita, congratulations!!!!!!!! Good job, we are behind you and will help you fight. this reminds of the time, Obama was stalled to place a judge on SCOTUS. HEY REPUBLICANS GET YOUR A** to MOVING AND SWEAR I THIS LEGALLY ELECTED CANDIDATE !!!!!!!!
Argument on the Louisiana VRA case took place today. One initial take:
First take out of court: The court appeared ready to make it more difficult for Voting Rights Act vote-dilution challenges to lead to additional majority-minority districts, but a majority also seemed likely to reject Louisiana’s argument that all “race-based redistricting” is unconstitutional.
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3m3aqq4v4uk2m
Not an ideal outcome but, if that’s what actually happens, far from the catastrophic.
Yeah, MSM and Marc Elias' Democracy Docket are fear mongering the worst-case scenario of this decision -- which COULD happen but reading between the lines, may not be Dobbs 2.0 (where red states immediately started banning abortion within days or hours of the decision being handed down).
SCOTUS shouldn't have agreed to re-hear the case, but when you have a 6-3 MAGA conservative majority, the rules are thrown out the window.
Marc Elias always wants people to prepare for the worst-case scenario, so we're ready to deal with it, and as we've seen recently, worst-case scenarios are not unlikely and decisions that seemed worse than the worst-case scenario have been perpetrated by this Supreme Court.
It’s possible that SCOTUS doesn’t drop their ruling until June, leaving little time to redraw, and that not every southern state that can redraw does so.
There are various possibilities, yes.
Question: what could/should we do in the event of a worst case scenario?
- Queue up an initiative in CO to adjust the redistricting process
- Do whatever possible to fast-track a challenge to the WI maps under the new SCOWIS majority
- Assuming there's no time and/or interest in a redraw in Georgia before 2026, focus on flipping the governorship or enough legislative seats to block a redraw (not sure what the law is here; obviously if a simple majority can pass new maps that can't be vetoed, as in NC, we'd be out of luck)
- Max out OR, MD, IL
Also work on ending fair districting in NY, WA.
Also get the trifecta back in MN, work towards re-electing Earls in NC, flip the PA State Senate,
Dismantling the VRA is literally the basic reason for Robert’s’ career, but I suspect he will split the apple again to further weaken it rather than gut it… This time.
We shall see. It's always iffy to predict the outcomes of Supreme Court cases, but betting on a less than terrible outcome now is very questionable.
Again, it feels like a Rorschach test, but one armchair political commentator I occasionally check on Twitter seems to think they could possibly end Section 2 private litigation (i.e. only governmental litigation in the future). Another thinks they remand with instructions against racial gerrymandering and I hope they take that route.
They haven’t agreed to take the private litigation case yet.
Oh? Anyway, I guess the overall takeaway from today was that they are less hostile to Section 2 than feared.
It’s always been my thinking that they will issue a narrow opinion only about the second MM district in Louisiana but not have a broader opinion that totally guts the VRA. This is Roberts’ safety valve when he sees a lot of public pressure that could further erode the public perception of the court. The advocacy of voting rights groups is to be commended on this front.
If they were following the law and their own precedent then they would rule with maintaining the additional MM district. But that seems highly unlikely.
I expect a narrow ruling (possibly before the normal June timeline) but wouldn’t be shocked if they went nuclear. But again I think it will be narrow.
seems unlikely they would have lined it up for rehearing if that were the case. I think we'll get a broad rule that prohibits cracking but also prohibits drawing districts like the 2nd LA one where you basically had to affirmatively racially gerrymander to get to a 2nd seat.
Yeah, I think the likeliest thing to come out of the case is ordering that the district be redrawn. With no Purcell “stay.” And I think the opinion will be issued sooner rather than later. Probably not long after the new year. Unless they have 5 votes to gut section 2, in which case the dissenters will make sure it will take longer.
If that is the outcome, what was the difference that allows it to square with Milligan from three years ago?
Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the court’s opinion in Milligan, appeared to suggest that the Milligan case should not necessarily dictate the outcome of the Louisiana case. “That case,” Roberts said, “took the existing precedent as a given.” And, he continued, “it was a case in which we were considering Alabama’s particular challenge based on … what turned out to be an improper evidentiary showing.”
Justice Elena Kagan countered that Alabama had “made several arguments that we specifically rejected” in Milligan. “And in the answers that you just gave to me,” she told Aguiñaga, “it seems to me that you repeated each and every one of those arguments that we rejected.”
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/court-appears-ready-to-curtail-major-provision-of-the-voting-rights-act/
I trust Chris Geidner - and not just b/c it’s confirmation bias…
https://www.lawdork.com/p/supreme-court-likely-to-further-diminish?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
NJ Gov Quinnipiac:
Sherrill 50-44. LVs
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3936
This is the one I was polled for on Saturday.
EDIT: The above numbers are with the entire field. With just the two main candidates, it’s 51-44.
Both candidates show increased unfavorables, but now Ciatterelli is underwater even as his supporters are somewhat more enthused.
Sherrill at 50+ is a solid sign for her
If Sherrill wins the NJ GOV race and Spanberger wins the VA GOV race, then that would be awesome.
Q NJ Poll Jackie by 6 https://x.com/SteveKornacki/status/1978520821053190382
I think you mean Mikie?
yup sorry
Jackie Sherrill was a football coach
A damn fine one too even if he never got a title
You can edit it to correct. Click on the three dots.
Missouri redistricting referendum:
Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R) announced Wednesday his office approved the referendum petition. But he also put an additional hurdle in organizers’ way, claiming the signatures already collected by voters are invalid and constitute a “misdemeanor election offense.” Hoskins said his approval was required before organizers could begin collecting signatures.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/missouri-secretary-of-state-erects-new-hurdle-for-peoples-veto-of-gop-gerrymander/
I imagine they will appeal.
They should. MO Republicans don't want the Respect MO Voters amendment or the veto referendum of their congressional maps on the ballot.
Because if the amendment gets on the ballot, voters will reject the new maps and vote for stripping power from the legislature. And their constantly overriding popular voter-initiated statutes (as well as constitutional amendments) will be over.
Exactly. It's also total bullshit that they committed some kind of offense in organizing and getting signatures for this.
"People Not Politicians," as mentioned by David in yesterday's digest, has an Actblue Express donation account, and I'd suggest all consider contributing whatever they can.
No major national groups are giving anything of note, also per David and Politico.
People Not Politicians, as noted by David, is the group collecting signatures.
I am interested to see how the referendum plays out if it qualifies. Given that Prop 50 is seemingly in good shape in CA, will other states default to their own partisan baselines, or will the (very valid!) arguments around who started this particular fight and for what particular goals carry any weight?
Venezuelan immigrant Hector Mujica has entered the Democratic primary for the special US Senate race next year in Florida.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-a-venezuelan-american-democrat-says-he-has-a-chance-in-floridas-senate-race/ar-AA1OvZcr?ocid=BingNewsVerp
Definitely encouraging to see younger faces running for office! I wish him well.
Extremely long shot. When you've never run for anything before, why is U.S. Senate a logical place to start?
Good point. Hector Mujica could run for local office or state government to get a start before running for the US Senate.
Then again, with the odds of Democrats likely not to win the Senate race, as long as it’s not an Alvin Greene type (in the SC Senate race against Jim DeMint), anything goes I suppose.
In theory, I love the idea of a religious Christian from Venezuela running for the Democrats, but if he had been a state legislator or something.
Considering what the Trump Administration is doing with its agenda towards Venezuela nowadays, it would be an interesting development for Mujica to have a Senate campaign in FL. Gives the Latino vote in the state more choices.
But I also really don’t know much about Mujica aside from the announcement per the link MPC shared.
A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from conducting mass federal layoffs during the government shutdown, siding with unions that have argued that the firings were illegal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/15/us/politics/government-shutdown-trump-layoffs-unions.html?unlocked_article_code=1.tk8.dmi1.Rf_gZKRVYg8S&smid=url-share
Expect the shadow docket to mysteriously void the TRO with zero stated reasoning.
VT-SD-Orleans - Republican Vermont State Sen. Samuel Douglass was in the disgustingly bigoted Young Republicans text messages that were recently leaked; Republican Gov. Phil Scott is asking for Douglass to resign.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DPzhjGNCQwP/
Once again, the GOP has no strategy for making gains in the deep, deep blue State of Vermont.
Seriously. Does GOP State Senator Samuel Douglass even live in the real world?
https://districtr.org/plan/330819
Map of Virginia with 9-2 Dem gerrymander - the catch is that all of the districts (apart from the 5th) have generally decent shapes and are similar to that of the current maps
A 10-1 map is possible in Virginia. If we end up redistricting in this state, we should go for that.
https://x.com/rooster_ohio/status/1978517287654068611
"A friend in DC had a Zoom call with Congressman Dave Taylor’s office today…
Taylor’s legislative correspondent, Angelo Elia, had what can only be described as an American swastika flag prominently displayed in his background."
They are not beating the allegations!
Glad the Nazi stuff is actually being highlighted in the media now. Bonus: Taylor scrambles to respond:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ohios-rep-dave-taylor-condemns-193342826.html
He’s a colossal dumbass of epic proportions.
Who are these people?
"Welp, that about pretty much does it, huh."
Cracked districts map
https://x.com/DavidAstinWalsh/status/1978553844117221869
I don’t think it’ll be that bad to be honest. I don’t see the GOP getting rid of every VRA sear they can. They’re facing internal resistance for non-VRA redraws.
And SCOTUS probably won’t rule until June 2026, when it’s too late to affect the midterms.
We need to win the house more than once. We need to win it next year and hold it for 2028 while regaining a trifecta. Otherwise we're powerless to fix all the problems being created right now.
It's important to remember that we need to position ourselves for more than the next election.
Then Democrats should counter with redraws of their own. 2026 should focus on repealing redistricting commissions, gaining trifectas, and more favorable courts.
"The Bulwark
@BulwarkOnline
Vance on public outrage over the "I love Hitler" group chat: "Grow up! Focus on the real issues. Don't focus on what kids say in group chats... The reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys — they tell edgy, offensive jokes. That's what kids do.""
"Christopher Hale
@chrisjollyhale
The ring leaders of the conversation are two years younger than Vance."
https://x.com/chrisjollyhale/status/1978532351064838538
Seems like "national conservatism" isn't much different at heart from another national something.
"
Joe Calvello
@the_vello
Mills only raised $1 million on launch, she had the following folks sending emails and fundraising for her and still only got $1 million. "
https://x.com/the_vello/status/1978526598270722430
"Graham Platner for Senate
@grahamformaine
Here’s why you were barraged with spam today."
https://x.com/grahamformaine/status/1978216606246310183
That sounds like a lot of money. It isn't?
He raised 500k in the same period. Many people like Ron Klein and others in the progressive wing also donated.
The amounts of money being spent on senatorial primaries in low-population states are insane!
Frankly, I find explicitly anti-establishment candidates just exhausting to listen to. How about instead of tearing down the brand your about to run on, run a positive campaign all about your brand? I know Planter has done some of the latter, but too much of the former for my own taste.
The brand that is disapproved by your own base and is so corrupt that they are fundraising for your opponent in the primary? Running on your own brand is surefire way to lose.
I wouldn't call the establishment backing Mills over Platner corrupt in any sense of the word, and by "brand", I mean both the Democratic Party as a whole, and a candidate's personal appeal. A candidate can run on their own personal brand without completely rejecting the brand of their party.
Opening a DSCC campaign account for Mills is corrupt.