What is most profoundly disturbing about this Gerrymandering War is that it’s coming damn close to eliminating the need for voters in much of the US of A.
Democracy is, by definition, voters choosing their politicians. Today, politicians are instead choosing their voters.
You could remove jurisdiction of SCOTUS to hear an appeal in gerrymandering cases. Congress can make the DC Circuit Court of Appeals the only appellate court with jurisdiction. I am saying this because there are other ways besides packing the court that might be easier.
Jurisdiction stripping has the added advantage that voters likely won't get angry about it.
That's legally different than regulating Article 3 jurisdiction. Worst case, independent commissions can be removed from federal judicial review in all cases
Seeing the GOP react online and on TV -- "you drew NY first!" "New England is all Dem, unfair!" etc. -- has a clear implication: they still believe gerrymandering benefits them on net. Similar to the electoral college/popular vote split -- they would need to be on the losing end before wanting to change the system. So how can we get them to be on the losing end of gerrymandering? I feel even a huge wave this year won't do it, because they'll (erroneously?) believe it was a wave year and would've lost the House anyway. We need to have a crushing 2026 AND 2028 for them to come to Jesus on this issue, hopefully in a Dem admnistration in 2029.
All Dark Blue States gerrymander every single Republican district out of existence in obscene strips emanating from Blue Cities. 53-0 in California would go a long way to ending Gerrymandering in this country.
Yes.. it's just telling that their response isn't "let's all agree to call it off," it's "you started it, so we won't stop." Not a surprise of course, but need to get them to change that mindset.
I don't recall these examples to know how similar they are, but Geoffrey Skelley says NC 2016 and NY 2022 delayed House primaries while maintaining their other primaries in response to court rulings. Tbh, my assumption is neither ruling occurred so close to the actual primary date that mail ballots had already been sent out, days before early voting with those races on ballot papers.
Well, LA voters and a congressional candidate already sued to block the state's suspension of House primaries. The case was assigned to an Obama appointee in the Fifth Circuit.
So I have previously been dismissive of the idea of drawing an 8-0 map in Colorado, preferring a 7-1 instead to ensure that all of the Democratic districts would be safe. And it is still clearly the case that a 7-1 map would be a dramatic improvement over the current 4-4 map. However, recent developments have made me wonder what an 8-0 map would actually look like, and if it were even possible to draw a map like that, where all 8 districts were at least Harris+10 and didn't look too ridiculous.
I started with the general idea of combining Denver with the eastern CO rurals, and let the districts fall into place from there. This is what I've come up with:
All 8 districts on the map voted for Harris by a margin of at least 10.7 percent. Not only that, but none of the districts look particularly crazy, and some are actually highly compact.
Colorado needs to abolish their redistricting commission (if repeal can pass in Virginia, it can pass in Colorado too), and implement a 7-1 map. And then, if Southern states like LA, MS, AL, TN, or SC try to eliminate all of their Democratic districts, Colorado should retaliate by implementing this map.
i can't believe I'm saying this but I wish we gifted newsom the governorship of colorado, as I don't trust polis as far as I could throw him. Same thing with new york, Kathy needs to move now!
I suspect it still carries some weight with AA voters, who are definitely a force in GA politics. That said, I'm guessing KLB probably had a strong majority with that group anyway.
And he doesn't have the kind of money needed to make up that much ground so quickly. Assuming KLB doesn't get over 50% and he makes the run-off (which is far from a given as he hasn't been second in any poll) he might be able to get enough attention to win but those are a lot of ifs.
Jacobin isn’t totally awful (although I’m borderline socialist so I’m biased) but some people associated with them like Bhaskar Sunkara and especially Branko Marcetic are.
According to the article, Texas Republicans are itching to redraw lines for the State House, State Senate, and State Board of Education. One of my favorite parts from the article: Rep. Matt Shaheen, a Plano Republican, said the political will to redraw other maps was already there before this week’s Supreme Court ruling. But now, lawmakers will have even more motivation to “rebalance” the state House, Senate and State Board of Education maps, as he put it. He said he’s optimistic lawmakers will take it up in 2027, when they are next scheduled to reconvene in Austin, rather than waiting for after the 2030 Census.
What "rebalance"? You literally have every statewide office and majorities in both chambers, a majority on the SBOE. I guess they feel they're entitled to every seat, not just a majority.
The article also mentions a list of 22 state house districts that Republicans could target. It's primarily targeting coalition districts. The list was initially circulated last year during the redistricting fight by an aide to Ken Paxton. https://x.com/Michellebbz/status/1956343744917033038
The one thing the article doesn't mention though is the "county line rule" that applies to the State House. Essentially, if a county like Dallas can support 14 state house districts, based on population, then all 14 of those districts must be drawn inside Dallas County. Doesn't completely eliminate potential gerrymandering, but it puts some suspenders on it so Republicans wouldn't be able to grab an urban district and snake it into rural territory. Should note, the "county line rule" is in the state constitution.
The discussion on The Downballot comments section has been talking about anything under Trump +10. Looking at the last 3 cycles (20, 22, & 24), there's a couple of State House seats Reps hold, but Dems averaged most of the vote (34 & 118), and another 12 where Reps margin was about 10% or less (112, 37, 121, 108, 52, 133, 138, 80, 63, 94, 96, & 97). There's another 12 seats where Reps margin averaged between 11% & 15% (122, 61, 67, 66, 65, 132, 20, 55, 54, 89, 26, & 129). If Dems are wanting to go on the offense, there's plenty of targets. And if urban and suburban areas turn hard against Reps, almost all of these seats cover urban and suburban areas around Austin, DFW, Houston, and San Antonio.
If I was making the case to large donors, I'd say look at Taylor Rehmet's victory in January. What has happened to move the needle in Republicans' favor even in Texas? If Taylor Rehmet's 32% overperformance is our target, that would add another 23 state house targets where Reps margin was under 32% and greater than 15%. I'd further add that if a 32% overperformance is the target, there are 6 state senate seats (2, 11, 5, 24, 18, & 22) that could be targeted and give Dems a majority in that chamber.
If Dems won off that 32% target they would have a 111-39 majority in the state house and a 18-13 majority in the state senate. Not likely to happen but with Dems raising large sums this year, wouldn't hurt to invest and put Reps on the ropes. Biggest incentive for investment is that those 14 seats means Reps can't gerrymander the state.
“Noted hiker Mark Sanford…”!!!!! Thanks for this—my first big laugh of the day, esp since it ended with his amount of time “…on the trail.” Well done!!
Many Trump disapprovers are Republicans. The goal isn’t to get their vote in November (though that would be nice, not gonna happen), the goal isn’t to get them to stay home.
NEW — Speaker Mike Johnson faced down a bruising “hell week” and ultimately pulled several key GOP bills across the line. But it came at a cost.
Republicans say Johnson’s habit of making last-minute, often contradictory promises to keep his tiny majority functioning is starting to catch up with him.
This week was just the latest example.
The speaker quietly cut a deal on the floor with a rival GOP faction. In doing so, he reneged on a previous agreement with a bloc of farm state Republicans. They ran back to the floor to figure out what happened. But it was too late.
Some later confronted Johnson, who is now promising a future vote on E15 May 13.
“Bullshit,” Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) yelled at the speaker as he tried to explain what happened later in the day.
Republicans expect that E15 vote will likely fail since it’s no longer attached to a must-pass bill.
Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), a longtime critic of the speaker, now says “without question” he will vote against keeping Johnson as top GOP leader in the next Congress.
“It’s pretty debilitating when you’re supposed to follow a guy into battle, and I wouldn’t trust him to get out of a wet paper bag with an M4,” Miller said.
I can corroborate this. Just yesterday, I was with a group of people who I've known for a few years and never seemed to be particularly interested in politics. But yesterday, they were talking about how gas prices (and prices for everything else) have gone up, and they specifically blamed the Iran War for it and expressed strong opposition to the war. I highly doubt they'll be voting for the political party of the guy who brought America into the war.
Bloomberg: New York Plots Two-Year Fight to Redraw Maps in Time for 2028
New York Democrats are pressing forward with plans to amend the state’s redistricting process after Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision narrowing the landmark Voting Rights Act.
To alter congressional maps in New York before the 2030 census would require a constitutional amendment, which must be approved two years in a row by the state legislature before it goes to voters. Democrats have until June 4, the end of the legislative session, to approve that amendment.
Theres so many roadblocks in new york that i just can't believe Hochul when she talks tough on this. Dems got in their own damn way with all these damn commissions.
And he has absolutely zero right to rail against Trump when he is responsible for Republicans’ margin in the House by pushing that commission and appointing judges that struck down the Dem gerrymander in 2022.
need to pass a constitutional amendment, and yes likely the court of appeals gets involved again however the composition is more liberal thanks to state senate dems tanking a conservative nominee in early 2023
spent a bit of the morning calling my extended family in new york and begging them to call her and demand new maps, when in reality I could have waited a few hours and irritated less family members by waiting to see this post
NEWS --> Dem can redraw anywhere from 10-22 additional House seats for the party in time for the 2028 elections if they aggressively redistrict in 7 key states, a new Fair Fight Action report finds.
While I typically would be cautious about doing this in Wisconsin instead of setting up a redistricting commission there since I would not want to risk us being overextended and wiped out in the midterms, we absolutely should gerrymander everywhere in 2027, get back into power in 2028, and then pass a law to ban gerrymandering nationwide in 2029 before the midterms to end this nonsense. If the only way to get enough seats to ban gerrymandering is to gerrymander everywhere, then so be it.
We need commissions in PA and WI. If we don’t get them, there is real risk of Republicans getting to gerrymander themselves majorities that are impossible to break again after 2030. I wouldn’t at all assume that the state supreme court liberal majorities are going to last forever in those states.
We don't need commissions if we are going to pass the For the People Act - if we get into power in 2028 and pass that before 2030, then no one will be able to gerrymander anywhere in the country and it won't matter if there are commissions or not.
But what if we can’t pass the federal act for whatever reason? If not, id like there to be guardrails in swing states against gerrymandering in the case where Republicans could have control in the future.
If we can’t pass the federal act even after all of this, I give up because we clearly will never have a party with enough backbone to accomplish anything so what’s the point.
And in any case, there’s no reason we couldn’t gerrymander for 2028 and then put an independent commission into place before 2030 if the For the People Act fails. Gerrymandering now and setting up a commission later aren’t incompatible.
I think this should be our approach in a lot of places where we might win a trifecta but are at risk of it going the other way (WI, PA, MI, AZ come to mind). If we wind up in control, gerrymander the crap out of everything, then put commissions in place. In places where a trifecta against us is unlikely (CO, WA, CA, VA, NV), I'd just gerrymander like crazy. I hate that this is where we are, but I think it's our only option. We have unilaterally disarmed ourselves for too long. As a side note, this is why I hate the EV compact too....
I think you are probably right on the nose here. However I don’t think we should be fighting a commission in Nevada. The chances we have a trifecta after 2030 there are very slim given that it’s likely we will have a Dem president and the governorship there is very hard for us to win as the state is trending away from us.
Yes but we don't need to maintain a trifecta - we just need the Republicans to NOT have one (which would be unlikely if we gerrymander the legislative maps). Worse case scenario, we'd wind up with a commission-like map if we have an R governor and a D legislature there.
What is most profoundly disturbing about this Gerrymandering War is that it’s coming damn close to eliminating the need for voters in much of the US of A.
Democracy is, by definition, voters choosing their politicians. Today, politicians are instead choosing their voters.
Hence the need in 2029 to just tear off the bandaid and abolish gerrymandering by statute for good
First, we need to pack SCOTUS from a 9 to 13-member court. That way they can't unilaterally undo the laws way they did with the Voting Rights Act.
You could remove jurisdiction of SCOTUS to hear an appeal in gerrymandering cases. Congress can make the DC Circuit Court of Appeals the only appellate court with jurisdiction. I am saying this because there are other ways besides packing the court that might be easier.
Jurisdiction stripping has the added advantage that voters likely won't get angry about it.
yes yes yes
I didn't know that limiting gerrymandering appeal cases to DC Circuit Court of Appeals was an option. Thanks!
Yep. The right to appeal is purely statutory.
If you can do that, what would stop Congress from simply saying nothing can be appealed to the Supreme Court?
But according to alito congress can do no such thing:
Justice Alito Straight Up Says Congress Has No Power to ‘Regulate’ The Supreme Court: ‘I Know This is a Controversial View’
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/justice-alito-straight-up-says-congress-has-no-power-to-regulate-the-supreme-court-i-know-this-is-a-controversial-view/
That's legally different than regulating Article 3 jurisdiction. Worst case, independent commissions can be removed from federal judicial review in all cases
I think we should steer clear of phrasing like "Pack". "Balance" the Court would be a better narrative framing.
“Re-balance” the court with 13 justices representing the 13 circuit court of appeals that we have.
Seeing the GOP react online and on TV -- "you drew NY first!" "New England is all Dem, unfair!" etc. -- has a clear implication: they still believe gerrymandering benefits them on net. Similar to the electoral college/popular vote split -- they would need to be on the losing end before wanting to change the system. So how can we get them to be on the losing end of gerrymandering? I feel even a huge wave this year won't do it, because they'll (erroneously?) believe it was a wave year and would've lost the House anyway. We need to have a crushing 2026 AND 2028 for them to come to Jesus on this issue, hopefully in a Dem admnistration in 2029.
All Dark Blue States gerrymander every single Republican district out of existence in obscene strips emanating from Blue Cities. 53-0 in California would go a long way to ending Gerrymandering in this country.
Actually they drew NC first in late 2023.
Yes.. it's just telling that their response isn't "let's all agree to call it off," it's "you started it, so we won't stop." Not a surprise of course, but need to get them to change that mindset.
Will federal courts agree with Landry, or will they force the state to have their primaries as originally intended?
Depends on whether the Purcell principle is only supposed to benefit Republicans.
I don't recall these examples to know how similar they are, but Geoffrey Skelley says NC 2016 and NY 2022 delayed House primaries while maintaining their other primaries in response to court rulings. Tbh, my assumption is neither ruling occurred so close to the actual primary date that mail ballots had already been sent out, days before early voting with those races on ballot papers.
https://x.com/geoffreyvs/status/2049881660036976954
Have people actually started voting in LA? That's the issue
Yes, overseas and military voters have. As well as the qualified absentee vote by mail voters who sent their ballots back.
Then this seems insane
Well, LA voters and a congressional candidate already sued to block the state's suspension of House primaries. The case was assigned to an Obama appointee in the Fifth Circuit.
We'll see what happens.
They'll probably permit Louisiana because the Callais decision directly affected the state and, of course, the majority said nothing about Purcell.
Why didn't they, in their decision, order the map redrawn then? Just to stall and cause more confusion?
They remanded to the trial court. So they presumably left it up to that court to decide how to proceed
Amazing.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:ifevtgk3w7ov6zjmgy333jkr/post/3mkpxzeiry62r
John Sununu: "I certainly support a work requirement for able-bodied Medicare recipients."
He probably meant Medicaid, but there's no reason to include that in the attack ad.
Definitely!
Chris Pappas is looking better heading to the general election!
Yay for Kemp. NO GA redistricting this year https://x.com/Taniel/status/2050211134813151417?s=20
i'm seeing on threads and politico he is likely to call a special session in the lame duck, my biggest fear there
I’m still astounded by the Republican party’s unashamed, even proud, racism. Vote Republicans Out.
So I have previously been dismissive of the idea of drawing an 8-0 map in Colorado, preferring a 7-1 instead to ensure that all of the Democratic districts would be safe. And it is still clearly the case that a 7-1 map would be a dramatic improvement over the current 4-4 map. However, recent developments have made me wonder what an 8-0 map would actually look like, and if it were even possible to draw a map like that, where all 8 districts were at least Harris+10 and didn't look too ridiculous.
I started with the general idea of combining Denver with the eastern CO rurals, and let the districts fall into place from there. This is what I've come up with:
https://davesredistricting.org/join/a7b7f132-cb06-45e7-bf90-ef3bf86a3329
All 8 districts on the map voted for Harris by a margin of at least 10.7 percent. Not only that, but none of the districts look particularly crazy, and some are actually highly compact.
Colorado needs to abolish their redistricting commission (if repeal can pass in Virginia, it can pass in Colorado too), and implement a 7-1 map. And then, if Southern states like LA, MS, AL, TN, or SC try to eliminate all of their Democratic districts, Colorado should retaliate by implementing this map.
i can't believe I'm saying this but I wish we gifted newsom the governorship of colorado, as I don't trust polis as far as I could throw him. Same thing with new york, Kathy needs to move now!
One thing no media seems to be aware of in the VRA battle...
People who care about their right to vote may stay home in many elections. The best way to get them to show up is to threaten their right.
This will mobilize people like not much else could.
Biden endorsed KLB. Ughhh.
I'd be surprised if that carries much weight.
I suspect it still carries some weight with AA voters, who are definitely a force in GA politics. That said, I'm guessing KLB probably had a strong majority with that group anyway.
Honestly, Esteves is still stuck in single digits (in most polls) and the primary is next month.
And he doesn't have the kind of money needed to make up that much ground so quickly. Assuming KLB doesn't get over 50% and he makes the run-off (which is far from a given as he hasn't been second in any poll) he might be able to get enough attention to win but those are a lot of ifs.
She's at 52% in the latest Insider Advantage poll, Thurmond is next with 14. She very well could get a majority.
https://jacobin.com/2026/04/himes-trump-surveillance-democrats-spying
CT-4: Democratic Rep. Jim Himes reportedly pushed for a bill that expanded government surveillance in private, but is publicly against it.
Not sure if Jacobin is the most reliable source.
I've hardly ever heard of it, and I found the article from another source as I was skimming Instagram.
It's a very well known demsoc mag. They have a slant, they're not unreliable.
Gotcha. So like most news media agencies.
Just socialist, naming themselves after the leaders of the Reign of Terror?
Jacobin isn’t totally awful (although I’m borderline socialist so I’m biased) but some people associated with them like Bhaskar Sunkara and especially Branko Marcetic are.
It's been reported by both The Prospect and The Lever.
https://prospect.org/2026/04/28/implausible-deniability-fisa-section-702-congress-himes/
https://www.levernews.com/top-democrat-opposed-surveillance-bill-then-whipped-votes-for-it/
I remember someone on Bluesky floating State Rep. Antonio Felipe as a possible primary challenge to him. We’ll see if he keeps blowing it.
From the Texas Tribune: Supreme Court voting rights ruling empowers Texas Republicans to redraw more partisan maps
Reason number infinity it's so important for Democrats to make gains in the Texas State House. We need 13 to tie and 14 for a one-seat majority.
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/04/30/texas-redistricting-supreme-court-voting-rights-act-louisiana-callais-section-2/
According to the article, Texas Republicans are itching to redraw lines for the State House, State Senate, and State Board of Education. One of my favorite parts from the article: Rep. Matt Shaheen, a Plano Republican, said the political will to redraw other maps was already there before this week’s Supreme Court ruling. But now, lawmakers will have even more motivation to “rebalance” the state House, Senate and State Board of Education maps, as he put it. He said he’s optimistic lawmakers will take it up in 2027, when they are next scheduled to reconvene in Austin, rather than waiting for after the 2030 Census.
What "rebalance"? You literally have every statewide office and majorities in both chambers, a majority on the SBOE. I guess they feel they're entitled to every seat, not just a majority.
The article also mentions a list of 22 state house districts that Republicans could target. It's primarily targeting coalition districts. The list was initially circulated last year during the redistricting fight by an aide to Ken Paxton. https://x.com/Michellebbz/status/1956343744917033038
The one thing the article doesn't mention though is the "county line rule" that applies to the State House. Essentially, if a county like Dallas can support 14 state house districts, based on population, then all 14 of those districts must be drawn inside Dallas County. Doesn't completely eliminate potential gerrymandering, but it puts some suspenders on it so Republicans wouldn't be able to grab an urban district and snake it into rural territory. Should note, the "county line rule" is in the state constitution.
The discussion on The Downballot comments section has been talking about anything under Trump +10. Looking at the last 3 cycles (20, 22, & 24), there's a couple of State House seats Reps hold, but Dems averaged most of the vote (34 & 118), and another 12 where Reps margin was about 10% or less (112, 37, 121, 108, 52, 133, 138, 80, 63, 94, 96, & 97). There's another 12 seats where Reps margin averaged between 11% & 15% (122, 61, 67, 66, 65, 132, 20, 55, 54, 89, 26, & 129). If Dems are wanting to go on the offense, there's plenty of targets. And if urban and suburban areas turn hard against Reps, almost all of these seats cover urban and suburban areas around Austin, DFW, Houston, and San Antonio.
If I was making the case to large donors, I'd say look at Taylor Rehmet's victory in January. What has happened to move the needle in Republicans' favor even in Texas? If Taylor Rehmet's 32% overperformance is our target, that would add another 23 state house targets where Reps margin was under 32% and greater than 15%. I'd further add that if a 32% overperformance is the target, there are 6 state senate seats (2, 11, 5, 24, 18, & 22) that could be targeted and give Dems a majority in that chamber.
If Dems won off that 32% target they would have a 111-39 majority in the state house and a 18-13 majority in the state senate. Not likely to happen but with Dems raising large sums this year, wouldn't hurt to invest and put Reps on the ropes. Biggest incentive for investment is that those 14 seats means Reps can't gerrymander the state.
I like that rule for a federal effort
“Noted hiker Mark Sanford…”!!!!! Thanks for this—my first big laugh of the day, esp since it ended with his amount of time “…on the trail.” Well done!!
Thank you! Who knows if Sanford will ever return to the campaign trail, had to send him out in style!
Many Trump disapprovers are Republicans. The goal isn’t to get their vote in November (though that would be nice, not gonna happen), the goal isn’t to get them to stay home.
https://x.com/gelliottmorris/status/2050183545721602449
Pundits say Dems are underperforming in the midterms because Trump approval is -20 yet Dems are "only" +5-8 on the GB.
But that misunderstands the disapprove-but-not-Dem group. It’s mostly closeted GOP partisans, not moderates waiting for Ds to pivot right
https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/2026-05-01-cross-pressured-voters-a-second-look
It’s not the usual Republicans mad at Johnson this time.
https://x.com/meredithllee/status/2050198491532550541
NEW — Speaker Mike Johnson faced down a bruising “hell week” and ultimately pulled several key GOP bills across the line. But it came at a cost.
Republicans say Johnson’s habit of making last-minute, often contradictory promises to keep his tiny majority functioning is starting to catch up with him.
This week was just the latest example.
The speaker quietly cut a deal on the floor with a rival GOP faction. In doing so, he reneged on a previous agreement with a bloc of farm state Republicans. They ran back to the floor to figure out what happened. But it was too late.
Some later confronted Johnson, who is now promising a future vote on E15 May 13.
“Bullshit,” Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) yelled at the speaker as he tried to explain what happened later in the day.
Republicans expect that E15 vote will likely fail since it’s no longer attached to a must-pass bill.
Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), a longtime critic of the speaker, now says “without question” he will vote against keeping Johnson as top GOP leader in the next Congress.
“It’s pretty debilitating when you’re supposed to follow a guy into battle, and I wouldn’t trust him to get out of a wet paper bag with an M4,” Miller said.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/01/mike-johnson-leadership-complaints-00902390
https://archive.ph/MvM2R
Gas prices are going to be a major boon to Democrats politically in November.
https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/2050238340008407263
Historic: More voters blame Trump (77%) for gas prices rising than ever blamed Bush, Obama or Biden.
A rare majority trifecta of Dems (95%), Indies (82%) & GOP (55%) now blame Trump.
And unlike what Trump/Rick Scott argue, 64% say the war hasn't been worth higher gas prices.
I can corroborate this. Just yesterday, I was with a group of people who I've known for a few years and never seemed to be particularly interested in politics. But yesterday, they were talking about how gas prices (and prices for everything else) have gone up, and they specifically blamed the Iran War for it and expressed strong opposition to the war. I highly doubt they'll be voting for the political party of the guy who brought America into the war.
the $5 mark was a huge psychological threshold. The moment it went above that, suddenly its like 30% of the country woke up (about the prices).
Kathy Hochul understands what needs to be done in NY in reaction to the SCOTUS ruling on the VRA.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2050223935669612772
Bloomberg: New York Plots Two-Year Fight to Redraw Maps in Time for 2028
New York Democrats are pressing forward with plans to amend the state’s redistricting process after Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision narrowing the landmark Voting Rights Act.
To alter congressional maps in New York before the 2030 census would require a constitutional amendment, which must be approved two years in a row by the state legislature before it goes to voters. Democrats have until June 4, the end of the legislative session, to approve that amendment.
https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-government-news/new-york-plots-two-year-fight-to-redraw-maps-in-time-for-2028
Theres so many roadblocks in new york that i just can't believe Hochul when she talks tough on this. Dems got in their own damn way with all these damn commissions.
cuomo loved having the state senate gop as a foil for why he couldn't do shit, the commission was his craven power play idea
And he has absolutely zero right to rail against Trump when he is responsible for Republicans’ margin in the House by pushing that commission and appointing judges that struck down the Dem gerrymander in 2022.
What are the actual steps.. does a court have to get involved again
need to pass a constitutional amendment, and yes likely the court of appeals gets involved again however the composition is more liberal thanks to state senate dems tanking a conservative nominee in early 2023
Also if Dems win the house, the voters might not feel an urgency to pass this, that's also why i'm skeptical.
I imagine they will feel the urgency when Republicans start gerrymandering other states later this year and next.
spent a bit of the morning calling my extended family in new york and begging them to call her and demand new maps, when in reality I could have waited a few hours and irritated less family members by waiting to see this post
If Republican partisans think Democrats won’t fight back, they’re very, very wrong.
https://x.com/GregTSargent/status/2050168403998974020
NEWS --> Dem can redraw anywhere from 10-22 additional House seats for the party in time for the 2028 elections if they aggressively redistrict in 7 key states, a new Fair Fight Action report finds.
This would offset GOP post-SCOTUS advantage.
New piece:
https://newrepublic.com/article/209830/trump-supreme-court-gerrymandering-voting-rights
While I typically would be cautious about doing this in Wisconsin instead of setting up a redistricting commission there since I would not want to risk us being overextended and wiped out in the midterms, we absolutely should gerrymander everywhere in 2027, get back into power in 2028, and then pass a law to ban gerrymandering nationwide in 2029 before the midterms to end this nonsense. If the only way to get enough seats to ban gerrymandering is to gerrymander everywhere, then so be it.
We need commissions in PA and WI. If we don’t get them, there is real risk of Republicans getting to gerrymander themselves majorities that are impossible to break again after 2030. I wouldn’t at all assume that the state supreme court liberal majorities are going to last forever in those states.
We don't need commissions if we are going to pass the For the People Act - if we get into power in 2028 and pass that before 2030, then no one will be able to gerrymander anywhere in the country and it won't matter if there are commissions or not.
But what if we can’t pass the federal act for whatever reason? If not, id like there to be guardrails in swing states against gerrymandering in the case where Republicans could have control in the future.
If we can’t pass the federal act even after all of this, I give up because we clearly will never have a party with enough backbone to accomplish anything so what’s the point.
And in any case, there’s no reason we couldn’t gerrymander for 2028 and then put an independent commission into place before 2030 if the For the People Act fails. Gerrymandering now and setting up a commission later aren’t incompatible.
Pass the state commissions now, pray for a federal trifecta in 2029
I think this should be our approach in a lot of places where we might win a trifecta but are at risk of it going the other way (WI, PA, MI, AZ come to mind). If we wind up in control, gerrymander the crap out of everything, then put commissions in place. In places where a trifecta against us is unlikely (CO, WA, CA, VA, NV), I'd just gerrymander like crazy. I hate that this is where we are, but I think it's our only option. We have unilaterally disarmed ourselves for too long. As a side note, this is why I hate the EV compact too....
I think you are probably right on the nose here. However I don’t think we should be fighting a commission in Nevada. The chances we have a trifecta after 2030 there are very slim given that it’s likely we will have a Dem president and the governorship there is very hard for us to win as the state is trending away from us.
Yes but we don't need to maintain a trifecta - we just need the Republicans to NOT have one (which would be unlikely if we gerrymander the legislative maps). Worse case scenario, we'd wind up with a commission-like map if we have an R governor and a D legislature there.
it feels like reading this, a realistic target for new seats from gerrymandering blue states should be net 15-16