Well, maybe I have a little bit of egg on my face. Yes didn't outperform Harris. It outperformed Harris in NoVA, but underperformed her in most of the rest of the state. But at least it passed, and that's the most important thing.
And I just have to say that Louise Lucas is an amazing person, for pushing this 10-1 map through the legislature and helping it pass last night. Every state needs a Louise Lucas - if Colorado had someone like her, they might already have a 7-1 map!
Reposting from last night because she deserves it.
She has to be up there now as one of the greatest Democrats of all time. She managed to hold control of the State Senate during Youngkin’s Governorship, blocking MAGA policy in tough political terrain for our party during Biden’s presidency.
She didn’t trim around the edges trying to add a seat or two, she didn’t back down from her promise of going nuclear on Republicans. The queen we don’t deserve, but are so very lucky to have.
I'm not in VA, but as an avid postcard and Vote Forward letter-writer, I have strongly supported VA legislative candidates the last few election cycles ('21, '23, '25) and I wrote a bunch of "Vote Yes" postcards this year.
So I am curious about your opinion of the impact of all the robocalls and mailers with disinformation telling Democratic-leaning voters to vote NO and claiming that Obama, Spanberger, etc. were against the referendum.
It would have been one thing for the GOP to send mailers to GOP voters telling them to come out to vote NO to preserve the GOP majority in the House. That would have been fair game. What they did is dirty pool and cheating in my book and I am glad it failed!
I will also eat crow. I thought it would easily pass, but it only barely did. Oh well. A win is a win. I don't think this tells us much about the environment though--referenda are historically weird and rarely closely match typical partisan voting patterns. Otherwise we would still be competitive in places like Missouri and Arkansas!
It looks like there was a lot of dirty pool with the R disinfo campaign. Of course they can always do that, but I think referendum questions are particularly vulnerable to those sorts of shenanigans because it's not immediately obvious whether you're team R or D the way you can always fall back on in a candidate choice.
All that said, I can see an argument for not wanting to keep that map indefinitely--going by the numbers, in a different, more R-headwind environment, that looks like it potentially opens up vulnerability to a dummymander.
This year, though? Yeah, GOP can suck it. I love the whining from the exact same people who were cramming Texas down their constituents'/everyone's throats literally months ago. At least CA and VA voted on ours.
I really want to ask, or someone to ask: just how dumb do you think we all are? Listen, just because y'all are in a personality cult and echo Fearless Leader if he said the moon is made of cheese, the rest of us didn't sign up. You started the gerrymander war here, remember? Pick a lane. Either you want fair maps or you want gerrymanders, but you don't get to go "gerrymanders for us, but it's NO FAIR when Dems do the same damn thing."
Or, do, but then don't be surprised when everyone calls you out for being whiny little spoiled toddlers.
The fact that it passed at all in what was once a swing (and before that, red) state is, to me, just as much of an indication of a blue tsunami as the overperformances. We’d have likely lost in a different environment. This might as well be an overperformance to me.
The polling for the VA referendum ended up being pretty much spot on. Yet another data point indicating that the death of the polling industry has been greatly exaggerated. Generally speaking, arguments that polls are worthless tend to be trotted out when people don't like what the polls have to say.
WI-1: Democrats could have a formidable candidate here in Milwaukee alderman Peter Burgelis, who will reportedly challenge Rep. Bryan Steil. Milwaukee is not in the 1st district.
This district was a Democratic target in 2018, and Ironworker Randy Bryce is running now, along with physician Mitchell Berman. WI Supreme Court justices Taylor and Crawford easily carried the seat in their elections, based in southeast Wisconsin, south of Milwaukee. Its conservatism has spawned the likes of Paul Ryan in the past.
Need some juice in CD1 - Steil is definitely beatable but the current slate of candidates is not that exciting. I had hope a member of the state legislature might have ran but it seems like they all have designs on being in the majority in Madison. Dems did well in the municipal elections in Janesville so I think the district is primed for a flip.
He absolutely will, with the humps being that candidate filing closes on 4/24 so they'd have to reopen it with any redistricting legislation after the 4/28 special session.
Edit: Oops, I missed the addendum on Florida that really a ton of consequential offices have a 6/12 filing deadline--US House, statewide elections (gov/LG/AG/treasurer/ag commissioner), state sen, state house, and county offices. Idk how much that leaves for the 4/24 deadline? US Senate and any partisan mayors?
The earlier date is all federal offices (Senate and House) and the later is for all state and local offices. There is a federal law requiring very long windows for overseas/military ballots because they can take a long time to go and come back (especially with military mailboxes). The constitution (and later court cases) limits how much Congress can regulate non-federal elections. Few states go to the both of having different filing deadline for the two.types of races, but they have that options.
"1st Qualifying Period for 2026: Federal (U.S. Senator), State Attorney (Judicial Circuit 20th only), Public Defender (Judicial Circuit 20th only), Judicial Office (i.e., Justice of the Supreme Court, District Court of Appeal Judge, Circuit Court Judge, and County Court Judge*)...
2nd Qualifying Period for 2026: Federal (U.S. Representative in Congress), Governor, Cabinet (Attorney General, Commissioner of Agriculture, and Chief Financial Officer), State Senator (even numbered districts), State Representative, County Office and Special District Office"
Yeah either the reporting about the dissent being slow-walked is accurate, or they want to kill the VRA but not have it be so close to the elections so people forget who's to blame.
Or they're not actually going to kill the VRA outright. I recall a few people who listened to the hearings note that Roberts and Gorsuch expressed opposition to further gutting of the VRA.
I’d love to quickly “open source” what a potential federal anti-gerrymandering bill would include. And it can’t be anything quirky that would never pass Congress like mixed-member districts or ranked choice or anything similar. What elements of a bill do folks think could a) legitimately curb gerrymandering in single-member districts, and b) pass Congress? Some options:
- a party’s share of districts needs to match presidential results (by how much?)
- independent commissions everywhere (how are they picked?)
- do we assume VRA is in place or not (would GOP even consider a proposal if this is included)
I would pass a stand-alone bill separately that simply bans mid-decade redistricting.
It will probably end up being something like “Districts shall not be drawn to unfairly advantage or disadvantage any one political party.” with a whole lot of fighting over what counts as “unfair.” By necessity, I think most standards would have to be floaty and vague to account for the various factors. For instance, while these days there is an extreme urban v rural discrepancy in politics, that has not always been the case, and it probably won’t always be the case going forward.
Some actual specifics that might be considered:
-Geographic limitations such as not needlessly splitting cities and counties
-Some requirement of a coherent community of interest, if feasible or possible (which could cover things like race, ethnicity, and limiting the mixing of urban v suburb v rural)
I would say a federal anti-gerrymandering bill would at minimum 1) ban mid-decade redistricting, 2) all 50 states required to use 13–15-person independent commissions for both state and Congressional map drawing, and 3) implement geographic limitations that keep map drawers from cracking and packing districts.
A big geographical limitation would be a requirement not to split cities or counties and if a county or city is too big to fit in one district it must fully contain one district before it’s split. You can’t split a county or city until you have overflowing population that in and of itself is too small for its own district and so on.
The issue with that is that there are some counties or cities where there is a COI argument for splitting, like putting northern Manhattan in with the Bronx, or putting the majority Hispanic parts of Newark in a different district than the majority Black parts.
Independent commissions are a 1 way ticket to court drawn maps imo. I’d much rather prefer a law that states the number of districts each party gets matches the voting support of said party. Now whether that includes just the most recent presidential or congressional election results in the state, whether it’s multipe or relies on Cook PVI, would be completely up in the air, but voters deserve representation they want regardless of where they live.
Massachusetts Republicans and Idaho Democrats should be able to have a voice in Congress. I really don’t like 30% of a state’s voters being without any representation ideally speaking. I don’t know if this is actually workable into a realistic framework, but that’s the kind of system I’d like to see. As for what it is today, I obviously support Democrats going nuclear on Republicans by gerrymandering them out of existence.
MA and ID are actually good cases, for me, that strike down the idea of mandating that a state's representatives should always closely match the partisan breakdown of a state. In ID with only 2 districts (even likely with 3 after the next census), you really can't draw even a competitive seat that isn't a horrific tendril-monster creeping around the state. In MA, you can draw a couple of seats R's could be competitive in, but it's a struggle to draw the 3 out of 9 seats that Trump's 36% 2024 vote count would suggest.
All that being said, I do think there should be a standard that encourages maps close to each state's partisan breakdown while recognizing when that's not possible, like in MA and ID.
I agree with your point about the impracticality of drawing "proportional" maps, but I also think its a bad idea philosophically. It would dramatically reduce the concept of checks and balances by having the house vote mirror the presidential vote. We already effectively have that in the Senate - we don't need it in the House too.
The Idaho constitution actually does bar splitting counties and I believe voting districts for the purpose of gerrymandering. It’s Idaho, so nobody realizes that.
Michigan's model is a good one, and is working well. No officers of a party, or politician, or former politician, or lobbyists can serve on Commission. By Constitution amendment the districts have be drawn as competitively as physically as possible. Non of those boundary rules are included.The NAACP did bring suit after the first primary where it was applied eliminated most Black Candidates around Detroit. That first election brought a very narrow Democratic Trifecta. After the NAACP won their suit, Democrats lost the State Senate. The fact that the new lines consolidated the Black Vote inside the City of Detroit instead of spreading it like spokes of a wheel with suburbia, by results: First Election, City of Detroit got a massive increase in funding from the State for everything from public schools to infrastructure, and social services. After the lawsuit: almost no bills have passed the deadlocked legislature and no new funding for anything.
MAGA still in control of House Republicans. New Republican Candidates show Republican Voters seem be choosing the more moderate one, if given a choice. Each District most be drawn as close to a 50/50 split as possible. Lines as square as possible to achieve this.
In a State like Michigan, where the Minority Vote is very small and concentrated, Cities like Detroit actually were better served by the first map by adding together the Union and Minority Vote to the betterment of both. The first legislature also benefited labor by eliminating the Right to Work law in Michigan. Labor never would have gotten this through the present legislature. The first legislature also got free lunch for every public schools child regardless of income plus A new Green New Deal on energy. Coalitions work, even in a narrowly divided Legislature!
The Detroit districts, as I recall, didn't elect as many black candidates to the state leg, but as Louise said, Detroit benefited more because it elected more candidates that cared about Detroit's interests. Afterward, the Black vote was packed and Black community got numerically more Blacks elected, but fewer total people that cared about their issues. Which begs the question as to whether VRA was truly serving the community, or if its current construction is still as effective as it could be.
For example, in SC, where I live now, the state senate has 12 of 46 seats filled by Dems (26%). 8 are Black. The state is about 25% Black. The floor for Dem votes is about 40%. The ceiling is about 45%. The Dem seats are packed in the gerrymandered sense with the Black population but they meet VRA. As a result the Dem districts are sinks and the Dems can't even prevent a supermajority of Rs. VRA assures 17% representation by Black senators, but anti-gerrymandering non-VRA might go farther in supporting Black interests. 21st century white Dems are not closet Klan members.
Oh, no! I was responding to the person who was asking what public commission models were proving effective and the details. My understanding is that the VRA is temporary lasting only through or to 2030. I would vote for the same in Michigan if it was presented as temporary! Alas, with our Senate held now by Republicans, there will be no changes here in Michigan, even temporary. Our delegation will probably be pretty evenly spit, with Dems holding on to retiring Sen.Peters seat. I am backing El-Sayed, but would be perfectly happy with McMorrow. I would take Stevens even over Mike Rogers any day!!!! I'm flexible as long as it isn't Republican. My own Congress person, Debbie Dingell is running unapposed.
Depends on how you want to view the data. RCP had him at -12.3 on April 22, 2018 for reference. There's a big negative spike right after Jan 6, and another one in Dec 2017. Otherwise as best I can tell he was better than -17 for the rest of the term on RCP.
It's sad that the Virginia redistricting is necessary, but I hope the Democratic congressional leaders take this opportunity to promise to ban gerrymandering next time they can. We need to be clear that we're doing this in self-defense and that we still believe in clean maps.
That's been a central part of the messaging in CA, VA, and elsewhere, but it does need to be taken to the national level. We support a NATIONAL ban on gerrymandering. Until then, we're going to "10-1" every state we can. Also, a national ban would likely require GOP votes, so it's important for both parties to realize this is needed (which is the core lesson of the gerrymandering wars anyway).
Democrats shaved approximately 1.3 points off the median House district, or in other words, shifted the average district playing field 1.3 points left after the redistricting war was started by Trump and Republicans.
In an era where a point or two can mean the difference between a win and a loss, that’s a big fucking deal! Also, TDB shoutout from Crystal Ball:
What will it take for the legislature to either get rid of top-two or combine it with ranked choice voting? Like, will it actually take getting locked out of something major? This is all so unnecessary and we have the supermajority we need to make any necessary changes, so for the love of all things holy, just get it done!
If anything Top 4 with RCV would be the way to go after a "Jungle Primary" In that case it would be Becerra, Steyer, Bianco and Hilton in the General so no chance of any lockout. Would that even be possible with a ballot measure?
It's something small to panic over, but I'd rather not nominate Zach Shrewsbury for Senate here in a few weeks. Not based on his progressive credentials or electability, but his past as a sexual harasser. It's a bad look for Democrats nationally to have someone like that be the nominee for federal office.
I'd love to see how the Virginia redistricting referendum fared in the each of the new congressional districts. It wouldn't surprise me if as many as 8 of the 11 districts went for the No side, although I could be very wrong about that.
Wow. Votehub took the by-precinct results offline.
It seems they initially didn’t distribute the county vbm to the by-district summary. (I.e most districts outside 3rd should have close to 300k votes. The total they had by each district was too small.)
Just eyeballing the vbm total, I think yes won 7th and 2nd probably comfy. Probably also carried 6th, or very close.
It seems what happened in VA was the opposite of what happened in CA. Anti-referendum spending spiked near the end for VA while anti-referendum spending in CA basically gave up in their last few weeks (also, CA is bluer of course).
Why was there the push to move redistricting out of the lege's hands? It felt like it came out of the blue in early 2020. It's not like NC in 2010 where Dems were still reliant on federally red, locally blue turf.
In California, I don't think the anti Texas element can be underestimated. People in California started at no, but Newsom strongly pushed a look what Texas is doing to us message.
That's a big part I think. If Virginia's vote had been held on the same day as California's I think we'd have seen a much bigger margin in favor of yes.
Another data point telling us that voters have a short memory. It's an important detail to remember.
I'm curious, considering this referendum didn't perform so great in downstate Virginia, if there's any backlash to the dems who will be running here? Could have countering winds, an anti-trump one and an anti-gerrymandering one.
I don't think so. At least we shouldn't conclude anything from this. Many red states vote for liberal/progressive-championed referenda all the time and that has no effect on Republicans who are against those things.
The only one who probably should be worried about their political standing is Abigail Spanberger. The polls that had Yes only narrowly winning had her approval ratings almost completely eroded to zero. She needs to course-correct the perception of her gubernatorial start if she has Senate or VP ambitions.
This feels like VA Dems doing exactly what I’ve long advocated for: Do all the unpopular/partisan stuff right away! Voters have short memories, so then there’s a long period of time for other news to replace the salience of the disapproval by voters on what is passed into law.
That way you can focus most of the rest of the term on the really popular bipartisan legislation and laws to improve your voter standing. When the next election rolls around all the things voters disapproved of won’t be remembered by anyone except the hardcore opposition voters who will never vote for your party under any circumstances.
That all said, Spanberger only gets 1 term, as all VA Governors do, so it doesn’t really matter if she’s unpopular now, she got elected. That’s all that matters. She’s there for 4 years and doesn’t have to worry about running for re-election.
It performed fine downstate in the places that matter for Dems. Richmond suburbs were solid for Dems and Yes won in 6/7 of the Hampton Roads localities. Charlottesville/Blacksburg areas voted in line with how they have in typical VA elections.
As far as virginia vote goes: I have neighbors who live in VA 6 mo/yr and in CA 6 mo/yr. They vote in VA and went back to VA last week so they could vote NO. They are retired Gov/University types who are loyal Dem voters. They said they and many others they know are voting NO because they are against the process (I couldn't convince them otherwise) of mid-term redistricting. I suspect this may have skewed the vote a little.
Deserves a mention: There was a lot of patriots in Virginia who made the new map happen. It wasn’t just the Yes voters, although they were key. There was also a chunk of unsung hero Democrats too. There was about 10-20% of Democrats who didn’t show up for the referendum, who did for the Governor’s election.
I suspect they are almost entirely Democrats who didn’t support the redraw of the map, either liking the current one, or hating the process, but importantly, they also didn’t want to help Republicans and Trump by voting how they actually felt and showing up to vote No. Had they voted No, this would’ve failed.
U.S. Rep. David Scott (D-GA) has died at the age of 80. Scott was running for re-election and had at least one Democratic primary challenger, so I don't know how Georgia election law deals with this situation.
Early voting starts next week so obviously well past the filing date. Likely means someone is going to be very lucky and have a D+23 house seat for as long as they want.
Only two of the primary candidates are prominent enough to have wiki pages: Emanuel Jones, state senator, and Jasmine Clark, state representative.
Are we going to see a flurry of endorsements coming up?
Clarification: Politics1 lists Scott as having five Democratic primary challengers, although I don't know if Scott's name can be removed from the ballot, and I don't know if all of the five candidates actually made the ballot or not.
He actually had more than 5 challengers, but some did not make the ballot. The ones that were able to make the ballot were state Rep. Jasmine Clark, former Gwinnett County board of education chair Everton Blair, state Sen. Emanuel Jones, dentist Heavenly Kimes, law enforcement official Jeff Fauntleroy, and physician Joe Lester.
Attorneys Ron McKenzie and Carlos Moore, former lobbying firm official Pierre Whatley and organizer Jonathan Bonner initially ran but didn't make the ballot.
I must have missed him skimming through the candidate lists. I also missed several other candidates that didn't make the ballot, which are now in my above comment.
To be fair, Scott was so far in decline that even House Democrats agreed he needed to go. I remember it being a big deal when they denied him the ranking membership on Agriculture even though they're so dogmatic about seniority and he previously held the position.
More than that, term limits. Scott was continuously in elected office since 1975. There is a correlation between old members and long serving members, but not necessarily.
We installed term limits in Michigan during the Engler days and it has resulted in lobbyists writing slanted legislation that their favored legis. reps sponsor, and generally poorly worded/sometime unworkable policy being passed. So be careful what you wish for.
Better options: No gerrymandered seats so that competition generates turnover and RCV so that entrenched incumbents in farther L or R districts can be ousted when multiple opponents contest districts.
There’s a balance to be struck between the two positions though. I’ve never been in favor of term limits, I think experience is invaluable. But on the flipside if you’ve been in elected office since 1975 maybe it’s time to hang it up
Absolutely! It’s a delicate balance and voters need to take their responsibilities seriously and not just reflexively vote the same person in for decades.
Do you apply that to Bernie Sanders? I certainly don't agree that long service automatically does that to people who choose to have a career in public service.
It's fundamentally the job of voters to decide if someone has been in a role too long. If voters want someone gone, then term limits aren't needed, and if they want them to stay, then term limits are an active problem... I understand that establishment-aligned PAC spending can keep a less-than-stellar person in office for a long time, but in that case the solution is better campaign finance laws, not term limits.
I think anyone in favor of term limits should vote against their incumbent officeholders in every election. If you don't, you just want term limits on someone else's officeholders.
I favor specific term limits of 6 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate, totaling two terms in each chamber. So if I like my representative or senator, I would vote for re-election bids until that time period. For example, Rep. Riley Moore has only served 1 House term so far, which I'm okay with (not that I would vote for him), but Sen. Shelley Moore Capito is running for a 3rd Senate term after already serving 7 terms in the House.
That principle should apply across the board, whether its judges, representatives, and especially you know, the current dotard in chief in the White House who's a birthday away from 80 at 79....
The fourth age/health-related death causing a vacancy since this Congress began (on the D side, five if you count LaMalfa). Like, is being in Congress really that great that you want to die there? Color me skeptical.
Dems have also had much worse luck with deaths lately. Lost 4 members to the GOP's 1 and LaMalfa was quite young compared to the Dems who died. Rogers, Foxx, Carter are all hanging on. Also Trump's longevity has been impressive given his age and known physical state/diet.
Can't remember if this discussed in the digest as well but on the podcast, the Davids have been tracking that the Iowa legislature is already moving on reducing the powers of the Governor, so you're absolutely right.
Also realizing that Scott was at Wharton from 1967–1969 for his MBA, and Trump transferred in 1966 and got his BS in 1968. Wonder if they ever knew each other. Grad and undergrad students may have been a bit separate, but tbh I imagine there weren't many Black students then and that Trump would have at least been aware of Scott as a person (if not by name).
Well, maybe I have a little bit of egg on my face. Yes didn't outperform Harris. It outperformed Harris in NoVA, but underperformed her in most of the rest of the state. But at least it passed, and that's the most important thing.
And I just have to say that Louise Lucas is an amazing person, for pushing this 10-1 map through the legislature and helping it pass last night. Every state needs a Louise Lucas - if Colorado had someone like her, they might already have a 7-1 map!
Reposting from last night because she deserves it.
She has to be up there now as one of the greatest Democrats of all time. She managed to hold control of the State Senate during Youngkin’s Governorship, blocking MAGA policy in tough political terrain for our party during Biden’s presidency.
She didn’t trim around the edges trying to add a seat or two, she didn’t back down from her promise of going nuclear on Republicans. The queen we don’t deserve, but are so very lucky to have.
https://x.com/SenLouiseLucas/status/2046772999785734391
“You all started it, and we f***ing finished it.”
The whole "you tried to give us a 10-1 map, let's see how you like it" was iconic.
I'm not in VA, but as an avid postcard and Vote Forward letter-writer, I have strongly supported VA legislative candidates the last few election cycles ('21, '23, '25) and I wrote a bunch of "Vote Yes" postcards this year.
So I am curious about your opinion of the impact of all the robocalls and mailers with disinformation telling Democratic-leaning voters to vote NO and claiming that Obama, Spanberger, etc. were against the referendum.
It would have been one thing for the GOP to send mailers to GOP voters telling them to come out to vote NO to preserve the GOP majority in the House. That would have been fair game. What they did is dirty pool and cheating in my book and I am glad it failed!
I will also eat crow. I thought it would easily pass, but it only barely did. Oh well. A win is a win. I don't think this tells us much about the environment though--referenda are historically weird and rarely closely match typical partisan voting patterns. Otherwise we would still be competitive in places like Missouri and Arkansas!
It looks like there was a lot of dirty pool with the R disinfo campaign. Of course they can always do that, but I think referendum questions are particularly vulnerable to those sorts of shenanigans because it's not immediately obvious whether you're team R or D the way you can always fall back on in a candidate choice.
All that said, I can see an argument for not wanting to keep that map indefinitely--going by the numbers, in a different, more R-headwind environment, that looks like it potentially opens up vulnerability to a dummymander.
This year, though? Yeah, GOP can suck it. I love the whining from the exact same people who were cramming Texas down their constituents'/everyone's throats literally months ago. At least CA and VA voted on ours.
I really want to ask, or someone to ask: just how dumb do you think we all are? Listen, just because y'all are in a personality cult and echo Fearless Leader if he said the moon is made of cheese, the rest of us didn't sign up. You started the gerrymander war here, remember? Pick a lane. Either you want fair maps or you want gerrymanders, but you don't get to go "gerrymanders for us, but it's NO FAIR when Dems do the same damn thing."
Or, do, but then don't be surprised when everyone calls you out for being whiny little spoiled toddlers.
The fact that it passed at all in what was once a swing (and before that, red) state is, to me, just as much of an indication of a blue tsunami as the overperformances. We’d have likely lost in a different environment. This might as well be an overperformance to me.
Or, political shifts that take place over periods of time have solidified Virginia as a solidly blue state in this time of American history.
That too.
The polling for the VA referendum ended up being pretty much spot on. Yet another data point indicating that the death of the polling industry has been greatly exaggerated. Generally speaking, arguments that polls are worthless tend to be trotted out when people don't like what the polls have to say.
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2026/04/21/alderman-peter-burgelis-exploring-run-for-congress/
WI-1: Democrats could have a formidable candidate here in Milwaukee alderman Peter Burgelis, who will reportedly challenge Rep. Bryan Steil. Milwaukee is not in the 1st district.
This district was a Democratic target in 2018, and Ironworker Randy Bryce is running now, along with physician Mitchell Berman. WI Supreme Court justices Taylor and Crawford easily carried the seat in their elections, based in southeast Wisconsin, south of Milwaukee. Its conservatism has spawned the likes of Paul Ryan in the past.
Need some juice in CD1 - Steil is definitely beatable but the current slate of candidates is not that exciting. I had hope a member of the state legislature might have ran but it seems like they all have designs on being in the majority in Madison. Dems did well in the municipal elections in Janesville so I think the district is primed for a flip.
Wonder if RDS is reconsidering how to redraw the FL Congressional maps after the narrow YES vote in Virginia.
He absolutely will, with the humps being that candidate filing closes on 4/24 so they'd have to reopen it with any redistricting legislation after the 4/28 special session.
Edit: Oops, I missed the addendum on Florida that really a ton of consequential offices have a 6/12 filing deadline--US House, statewide elections (gov/LG/AG/treasurer/ag commissioner), state sen, state house, and county offices. Idk how much that leaves for the 4/24 deadline? US Senate and any partisan mayors?
The earlier date is all federal offices (Senate and House) and the later is for all state and local offices. There is a federal law requiring very long windows for overseas/military ballots because they can take a long time to go and come back (especially with military mailboxes). The constitution (and later court cases) limits how much Congress can regulate non-federal elections. Few states go to the both of having different filing deadline for the two.types of races, but they have that options.
The later date is definitely the date for the House.
Edit: Here's the SOS. https://dos.fl.gov/elections/candidates-committees/qualifying/
"1st Qualifying Period for 2026: Federal (U.S. Senator), State Attorney (Judicial Circuit 20th only), Public Defender (Judicial Circuit 20th only), Judicial Office (i.e., Justice of the Supreme Court, District Court of Appeal Judge, Circuit Court Judge, and County Court Judge*)...
2nd Qualifying Period for 2026: Federal (U.S. Representative in Congress), Governor, Cabinet (Attorney General, Commissioner of Agriculture, and Chief Financial Officer), State Senator (even numbered districts), State Representative, County Office and Special District Office"
The Callais decision may be announced in a few minutes which may give him more ammunition
Nope, not today
At this point, no shot Callais is released before June imo
I think you may be right. So it won’t apply to this year’s elections.
Yeah either the reporting about the dissent being slow-walked is accurate, or they want to kill the VRA but not have it be so close to the elections so people forget who's to blame.
Or they're not actually going to kill the VRA outright. I recall a few people who listened to the hearings note that Roberts and Gorsuch expressed opposition to further gutting of the VRA.
I’d love to quickly “open source” what a potential federal anti-gerrymandering bill would include. And it can’t be anything quirky that would never pass Congress like mixed-member districts or ranked choice or anything similar. What elements of a bill do folks think could a) legitimately curb gerrymandering in single-member districts, and b) pass Congress? Some options:
- a party’s share of districts needs to match presidential results (by how much?)
- independent commissions everywhere (how are they picked?)
- do we assume VRA is in place or not (would GOP even consider a proposal if this is included)
I would pass a stand-alone bill separately that simply bans mid-decade redistricting.
It will probably end up being something like “Districts shall not be drawn to unfairly advantage or disadvantage any one political party.” with a whole lot of fighting over what counts as “unfair.” By necessity, I think most standards would have to be floaty and vague to account for the various factors. For instance, while these days there is an extreme urban v rural discrepancy in politics, that has not always been the case, and it probably won’t always be the case going forward.
Some actual specifics that might be considered:
-Geographic limitations such as not needlessly splitting cities and counties
-Some requirement of a coherent community of interest, if feasible or possible (which could cover things like race, ethnicity, and limiting the mixing of urban v suburb v rural)
I would say a federal anti-gerrymandering bill would at minimum 1) ban mid-decade redistricting, 2) all 50 states required to use 13–15-person independent commissions for both state and Congressional map drawing, and 3) implement geographic limitations that keep map drawers from cracking and packing districts.
A big geographical limitation would be a requirement not to split cities or counties and if a county or city is too big to fit in one district it must fully contain one district before it’s split. You can’t split a county or city until you have overflowing population that in and of itself is too small for its own district and so on.
The issue with that is that there are some counties or cities where there is a COI argument for splitting, like putting northern Manhattan in with the Bronx, or putting the majority Hispanic parts of Newark in a different district than the majority Black parts.
Independent commissions are a 1 way ticket to court drawn maps imo. I’d much rather prefer a law that states the number of districts each party gets matches the voting support of said party. Now whether that includes just the most recent presidential or congressional election results in the state, whether it’s multipe or relies on Cook PVI, would be completely up in the air, but voters deserve representation they want regardless of where they live.
Massachusetts Republicans and Idaho Democrats should be able to have a voice in Congress. I really don’t like 30% of a state’s voters being without any representation ideally speaking. I don’t know if this is actually workable into a realistic framework, but that’s the kind of system I’d like to see. As for what it is today, I obviously support Democrats going nuclear on Republicans by gerrymandering them out of existence.
MA and ID are actually good cases, for me, that strike down the idea of mandating that a state's representatives should always closely match the partisan breakdown of a state. In ID with only 2 districts (even likely with 3 after the next census), you really can't draw even a competitive seat that isn't a horrific tendril-monster creeping around the state. In MA, you can draw a couple of seats R's could be competitive in, but it's a struggle to draw the 3 out of 9 seats that Trump's 36% 2024 vote count would suggest.
All that being said, I do think there should be a standard that encourages maps close to each state's partisan breakdown while recognizing when that's not possible, like in MA and ID.
I agree with your point about the impracticality of drawing "proportional" maps, but I also think its a bad idea philosophically. It would dramatically reduce the concept of checks and balances by having the house vote mirror the presidential vote. We already effectively have that in the Senate - we don't need it in the House too.
The Idaho constitution actually does bar splitting counties and I believe voting districts for the purpose of gerrymandering. It’s Idaho, so nobody realizes that.
Michigan's model is a good one, and is working well. No officers of a party, or politician, or former politician, or lobbyists can serve on Commission. By Constitution amendment the districts have be drawn as competitively as physically as possible. Non of those boundary rules are included.The NAACP did bring suit after the first primary where it was applied eliminated most Black Candidates around Detroit. That first election brought a very narrow Democratic Trifecta. After the NAACP won their suit, Democrats lost the State Senate. The fact that the new lines consolidated the Black Vote inside the City of Detroit instead of spreading it like spokes of a wheel with suburbia, by results: First Election, City of Detroit got a massive increase in funding from the State for everything from public schools to infrastructure, and social services. After the lawsuit: almost no bills have passed the deadlocked legislature and no new funding for anything.
MAGA still in control of House Republicans. New Republican Candidates show Republican Voters seem be choosing the more moderate one, if given a choice. Each District most be drawn as close to a 50/50 split as possible. Lines as square as possible to achieve this.
In a State like Michigan, where the Minority Vote is very small and concentrated, Cities like Detroit actually were better served by the first map by adding together the Union and Minority Vote to the betterment of both. The first legislature also benefited labor by eliminating the Right to Work law in Michigan. Labor never would have gotten this through the present legislature. The first legislature also got free lunch for every public schools child regardless of income plus A new Green New Deal on energy. Coalitions work, even in a narrowly divided Legislature!
Surely you aren't proposing we scrap the VRA?
The Detroit districts, as I recall, didn't elect as many black candidates to the state leg, but as Louise said, Detroit benefited more because it elected more candidates that cared about Detroit's interests. Afterward, the Black vote was packed and Black community got numerically more Blacks elected, but fewer total people that cared about their issues. Which begs the question as to whether VRA was truly serving the community, or if its current construction is still as effective as it could be.
For example, in SC, where I live now, the state senate has 12 of 46 seats filled by Dems (26%). 8 are Black. The state is about 25% Black. The floor for Dem votes is about 40%. The ceiling is about 45%. The Dem seats are packed in the gerrymandered sense with the Black population but they meet VRA. As a result the Dem districts are sinks and the Dems can't even prevent a supermajority of Rs. VRA assures 17% representation by Black senators, but anti-gerrymandering non-VRA might go farther in supporting Black interests. 21st century white Dems are not closet Klan members.
Oh, no! I was responding to the person who was asking what public commission models were proving effective and the details. My understanding is that the VRA is temporary lasting only through or to 2030. I would vote for the same in Michigan if it was presented as temporary! Alas, with our Senate held now by Republicans, there will be no changes here in Michigan, even temporary. Our delegation will probably be pretty evenly spit, with Dems holding on to retiring Sen.Peters seat. I am backing El-Sayed, but would be perfectly happy with McMorrow. I would take Stevens even over Mike Rogers any day!!!! I'm flexible as long as it isn't Republican. My own Congress person, Debbie Dingell is running unapposed.
Trump drops to -17 approval on RCP. Second term low. -20 on NY Times.
Was he lower than that at some point in his first term?
Depends on how you want to view the data. RCP had him at -12.3 on April 22, 2018 for reference. There's a big negative spike right after Jan 6, and another one in Dec 2017. Otherwise as best I can tell he was better than -17 for the rest of the term on RCP.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179-test-v2.html
It's sad that the Virginia redistricting is necessary, but I hope the Democratic congressional leaders take this opportunity to promise to ban gerrymandering next time they can. We need to be clear that we're doing this in self-defense and that we still believe in clean maps.
That's been a central part of the messaging in CA, VA, and elsewhere, but it does need to be taken to the national level. We support a NATIONAL ban on gerrymandering. Until then, we're going to "10-1" every state we can. Also, a national ban would likely require GOP votes, so it's important for both parties to realize this is needed (which is the core lesson of the gerrymandering wars anyway).
The Obama minority voter coalition is back again for Democrats.
https://x.com/ZacharyDonnini/status/2046950973189280207
Across 70 of the most Asian- and Hispanic-heavy precincts in Fairfax, Loudoun, and Manassas Park, YES overperformed Harris by 16 points.
That massive shift, combined with solid gains among Black voters in Richmond and Hampton Roads, secured passage of the 10–1 gerrymander.
Democrats shaved approximately 1.3 points off the median House district, or in other words, shifted the average district playing field 1.3 points left after the redistricting war was started by Trump and Republicans.
In an era where a point or two can mean the difference between a win and a loss, that’s a big fucking deal! Also, TDB shoutout from Crystal Ball:
https://x.com/kkondik/status/2046954664722039135
“Taking VA into account, along with new maps in CA, MO, NC, OH, TX, & UT:
The new median House seat by 2024 presidential margin is Trump +1.8 (3-way tie among NM-2, CO-8, & CA-22).
Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 pts, so only a minuscule R bias
Prior to VA, median seat was redrawn OH-1, Trump +2.6
Prior to any redistricting, median seat was AZ-1, Trump +3.1
This is one way of showing how Dems have come out ahead to some degree in redistricting, so far
calculations are based on district-level presidential calculations from the Downballot and from Dave's Redistricting App“
New top two lockout panic cycle for CA-48? lol
What will it take for the legislature to either get rid of top-two or combine it with ranked choice voting? Like, will it actually take getting locked out of something major? This is all so unnecessary and we have the supermajority we need to make any necessary changes, so for the love of all things holy, just get it done!
The top two primary was put in by a ballot measure. I am pretty sure that it needs another vote of the people to be repealed.
It will take a ballot amendment because it was passed as a constitutional amendment by voters.
The LA Times and other political commentators are rallying to get it changed.
I've gone on a letter writing campaign to elected statewide pols and state legislators and as of yet have had zero response.
I'm hoping that after we get a Democratic governor that we don't forget the problem.
If anything Top 4 with RCV would be the way to go after a "Jungle Primary" In that case it would be Becerra, Steyer, Bianco and Hilton in the General so no chance of any lockout. Would that even be possible with a ballot measure?
Why LOL?
The poll in the digest
No, why would it be a laughing matter?
I'm assuming alien's generation here but I think this article helps:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-do-millennials-write-lol-after-everything_l_6622dd3be4b0167f7bf4e2d0
particularly this quote: "Alex Liggett, a millennial from Pittsburgh, likens millennials’ 'lol' overuse to 'a scream at the state of the world.'"
Ok, fair enough. I won't emulate that overuse, as it risks sapping the abbreviation of meaning.
Ok, no one was asking that of you...lol
Because it isn't going to happen but people need something new to panic over post-VA.
It's something small to panic over, but I'd rather not nominate Zach Shrewsbury for Senate here in a few weeks. Not based on his progressive credentials or electability, but his past as a sexual harasser. It's a bad look for Democrats nationally to have someone like that be the nominee for federal office.
I'd love to see how the Virginia redistricting referendum fared in the each of the new congressional districts. It wouldn't surprise me if as many as 8 of the 11 districts went for the No side, although I could be very wrong about that.
Someone did calculate this!
"No" won 2, 6 and 9
https://x.com/FLPolEnjoyer/status/2046778262567759905?s=20
Probably only the new 9th and 6th.
Votehub showed no ahead by hundreds of votes in 2nd and 7th. With provisionals and late arriving VBMs, quite possibly they flip back to yes.
Yeah quite possible
Wow. Votehub took the by-precinct results offline.
It seems they initially didn’t distribute the county vbm to the by-district summary. (I.e most districts outside 3rd should have close to 300k votes. The total they had by each district was too small.)
Just eyeballing the vbm total, I think yes won 7th and 2nd probably comfy. Probably also carried 6th, or very close.
It seems what happened in VA was the opposite of what happened in CA. Anti-referendum spending spiked near the end for VA while anti-referendum spending in CA basically gave up in their last few weeks (also, CA is bluer of course).
Why was there the push to move redistricting out of the lege's hands? It felt like it came out of the blue in early 2020. It's not like NC in 2010 where Dems were still reliant on federally red, locally blue turf.
In California, I don't think the anti Texas element can be underestimated. People in California started at no, but Newsom strongly pushed a look what Texas is doing to us message.
That's a big part I think. If Virginia's vote had been held on the same day as California's I think we'd have seen a much bigger margin in favor of yes.
Another data point telling us that voters have a short memory. It's an important detail to remember.
Yep, California was fresh off texas
Nobody should underestimate the antipathy we have for Texas. It is almost an insult to call someone a Texan here (Oakland, Ca)
I'm curious, considering this referendum didn't perform so great in downstate Virginia, if there's any backlash to the dems who will be running here? Could have countering winds, an anti-trump one and an anti-gerrymandering one.
I don't think so. At least we shouldn't conclude anything from this. Many red states vote for liberal/progressive-championed referenda all the time and that has no effect on Republicans who are against those things.
The only one who probably should be worried about their political standing is Abigail Spanberger. The polls that had Yes only narrowly winning had her approval ratings almost completely eroded to zero. She needs to course-correct the perception of her gubernatorial start if she has Senate or VP ambitions.
This feels like VA Dems doing exactly what I’ve long advocated for: Do all the unpopular/partisan stuff right away! Voters have short memories, so then there’s a long period of time for other news to replace the salience of the disapproval by voters on what is passed into law.
That way you can focus most of the rest of the term on the really popular bipartisan legislation and laws to improve your voter standing. When the next election rolls around all the things voters disapproved of won’t be remembered by anyone except the hardcore opposition voters who will never vote for your party under any circumstances.
That all said, Spanberger only gets 1 term, as all VA Governors do, so it doesn’t really matter if she’s unpopular now, she got elected. That’s all that matters. She’s there for 4 years and doesn’t have to worry about running for re-election.
I agree, stop worrying about polling, of course republicans aren't going to like it.
It performed fine downstate in the places that matter for Dems. Richmond suburbs were solid for Dems and Yes won in 6/7 of the Hampton Roads localities. Charlottesville/Blacksburg areas voted in line with how they have in typical VA elections.
How funny it will be if somehow Greg Abbott who started this redistricting battle also loses his reelection bid for Governor.
As far as virginia vote goes: I have neighbors who live in VA 6 mo/yr and in CA 6 mo/yr. They vote in VA and went back to VA last week so they could vote NO. They are retired Gov/University types who are loyal Dem voters. They said they and many others they know are voting NO because they are against the process (I couldn't convince them otherwise) of mid-term redistricting. I suspect this may have skewed the vote a little.
Deserves a mention: There was a lot of patriots in Virginia who made the new map happen. It wasn’t just the Yes voters, although they were key. There was also a chunk of unsung hero Democrats too. There was about 10-20% of Democrats who didn’t show up for the referendum, who did for the Governor’s election.
I suspect they are almost entirely Democrats who didn’t support the redraw of the map, either liking the current one, or hating the process, but importantly, they also didn’t want to help Republicans and Trump by voting how they actually felt and showing up to vote No. Had they voted No, this would’ve failed.
U.S. Rep. David Scott (D-GA) has died at the age of 80. Scott was running for re-election and had at least one Democratic primary challenger, so I don't know how Georgia election law deals with this situation.
Early voting starts next week so obviously well past the filing date. Likely means someone is going to be very lucky and have a D+23 house seat for as long as they want.
Only two of the primary candidates are prominent enough to have wiki pages: Emanuel Jones, state senator, and Jasmine Clark, state representative.
Are we going to see a flurry of endorsements coming up?
Last poll I saw had Clark up. The question is, will that stick without Scott, or will his support go elsewhere?
Everton Blair also has some prominent endorsements
Yeah, Blair and Clark have the money and headlines - Jones and Kimes have decent money, but that's not coming across in polling.
Both Blair and Clark are progressives from what I’ve heard too. Both would be upgrades from Scott.
Made me curious for their fundraising in the past quarter.
Clark $621k, Blair $180k, Kimes $44k, Scott $43k, Jones $2k
Clark has a clear financial advantage.
Kimes and Jones are doing some self-funding, but not enough to really be meaningful imo.
To be fair, it's the norm on Wikipedia that every state legislator has a page.
Clarification: Politics1 lists Scott as having five Democratic primary challengers, although I don't know if Scott's name can be removed from the ballot, and I don't know if all of the five candidates actually made the ballot or not.
He actually had more than 5 challengers, but some did not make the ballot. The ones that were able to make the ballot were state Rep. Jasmine Clark, former Gwinnett County board of education chair Everton Blair, state Sen. Emanuel Jones, dentist Heavenly Kimes, law enforcement official Jeff Fauntleroy, and physician Joe Lester.
Attorneys Ron McKenzie and Carlos Moore, former lobbying firm official Pierre Whatley and organizer Jonathan Bonner initially ran but didn't make the ballot.
Where have you seen Jeff Fauntleroy didn't make the ballot? He's listed as qualified at the SoS site, and WABE lists him with the others. https://sos.ga.gov/qualified-candidates, https://www.wabe.org/2026georgiacandidates/
I must have missed him skimming through the candidate lists. I also missed several other candidates that didn't make the ballot, which are now in my above comment.
Maybe, just MAYBE we shouldn't have people running for office in their 80s. RIP to him but damn, they just need to learn when to hang it up.
To be fair, Scott was so far in decline that even House Democrats agreed he needed to go. I remember it being a big deal when they denied him the ranking membership on Agriculture even though they're so dogmatic about seniority and he previously held the position.
More than that, term limits. Scott was continuously in elected office since 1975. There is a correlation between old members and long serving members, but not necessarily.
We installed term limits in Michigan during the Engler days and it has resulted in lobbyists writing slanted legislation that their favored legis. reps sponsor, and generally poorly worded/sometime unworkable policy being passed. So be careful what you wish for.
Better options: No gerrymandered seats so that competition generates turnover and RCV so that entrenched incumbents in farther L or R districts can be ousted when multiple opponents contest districts.
There’s a balance to be struck between the two positions though. I’ve never been in favor of term limits, I think experience is invaluable. But on the flipside if you’ve been in elected office since 1975 maybe it’s time to hang it up
Experience is a good quality to have, but I'd argue long service also corrupts a politician and makes them have a distorted view of the outside world.
Absolutely! It’s a delicate balance and voters need to take their responsibilities seriously and not just reflexively vote the same person in for decades.
Do you apply that to Bernie Sanders? I certainly don't agree that long service automatically does that to people who choose to have a career in public service.
It's fundamentally the job of voters to decide if someone has been in a role too long. If voters want someone gone, then term limits aren't needed, and if they want them to stay, then term limits are an active problem... I understand that establishment-aligned PAC spending can keep a less-than-stellar person in office for a long time, but in that case the solution is better campaign finance laws, not term limits.
I think anyone in favor of term limits should vote against their incumbent officeholders in every election. If you don't, you just want term limits on someone else's officeholders.
I favor specific term limits of 6 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate, totaling two terms in each chamber. So if I like my representative or senator, I would vote for re-election bids until that time period. For example, Rep. Riley Moore has only served 1 House term so far, which I'm okay with (not that I would vote for him), but Sen. Shelley Moore Capito is running for a 3rd Senate term after already serving 7 terms in the House.
That principle should apply across the board, whether its judges, representatives, and especially you know, the current dotard in chief in the White House who's a birthday away from 80 at 79....
The fourth age/health-related death causing a vacancy since this Congress began (on the D side, five if you count LaMalfa). Like, is being in Congress really that great that you want to die there? Color me skeptical.
If you're insider trading creating generational wealth for your family, I'm sure it is.
Oof
Wasn't he photographed as the old dude in the wheelchair filing for re-election?
You'd think Congress didn't offer a pension.
Seems like maybe people were correct to be skeptical about his health when he was missing votes and being rolled in a wheelchair into the capitol
House Dems still have 36 members running for reelection who will be over 75 by January 2029. House Repubs have 21.
Dems have also had much worse luck with deaths lately. Lost 4 members to the GOP's 1 and LaMalfa was quite young compared to the Dems who died. Rogers, Foxx, Carter are all hanging on. Also Trump's longevity has been impressive given his age and known physical state/diet.
Did Iowa already change the law regarding appointments? Because Governor Sand (if it comes to pass) would have quite the choice ahead of him.
Could. No way to know how long Grassley will live.
Of course we don't. But at 92 there's a pretty decent chance it happens in the next 3 years.
And the 25th Amendment allows him to be closer to the presidency than Marco Rubio. 3rd in line, to be specific.
Not yet, according to NCSL:
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/vacancies-in-the-united-states-senate
Could see Iowa ramming a law in the lame duck if Sand wins, that or Grassley doing a lame duck resignation.
Can't remember if this discussed in the digest as well but on the podcast, the Davids have been tracking that the Iowa legislature is already moving on reducing the powers of the Governor, so you're absolutely right.
It's so messed up that they can do this.
Also realizing that Scott was at Wharton from 1967–1969 for his MBA, and Trump transferred in 1966 and got his BS in 1968. Wonder if they ever knew each other. Grad and undergrad students may have been a bit separate, but tbh I imagine there weren't many Black students then and that Trump would have at least been aware of Scott as a person (if not by name).
He probably thinks Scott was "low IQ"
He probably would, even though he was a master's student who got in on his own and not an undergrad who begged his daddy to get him in.
The California governor's debate airs tonight at 7pm Pacific. The first hour of the debate is carried on these stations:
Here are the California stations carrying the debate:
Los Angeles: KTLA 5
San Francisco/Bay Area: KRON4
Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto: KTXL FOX40
San Diego: KSWB/KUSI (FOX 5/KUSI)
Fresno/Visalia: KSEE24/CBS47
Bakersfield: KGET
The debate is actually 90 minutes, and the last half hour will be on streaming.
Sounds like a Nexstar-produced debate (KTLA and KRON are Nexstar-owned), similar to the WGN/WCIA-produced debates in Illinois.
Also, an apparent glitch caused your comment to post four times.
Fox 5 and KUSI in San Diego are also both NextStar.
Probably the glitch was me, but I got rid of 3 of them.