Democrats Need to Grow Up on Redistricting

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA)

One of the most famous quotes about the American electoral system is "Politics ain't beanbag."  It originates from Finley Peter Dunne, a 19th Century Chicago humorist and journalist, and it essentially means that being a politician isn't for the faint-of-heart.  You need to be willing to do what it takes to win, and while this has historically toed the line between legal and illegal (lord knows we've got a lot of the latter in 2025), it also means that you are willing to use legal mechanisms (or the tools at your disposal) to be able to fight fire-with-fire.

I bring this up because of the ongoing debate over whether or not the Democrats need to counteract the movements by the Ohio & Texas Republican Parties to engage in mid-decade redistricting.  Both state parties are expected to redraw maps in their states to further gerrymander their House delegation, potentially winning as many as 8 districts between them by drawing incumbents like Julie Johnson, Lizzie Fletcher, Emilia Sykes, & Henry Cuellar into seats that they cannot possibly win.  This would give the Republicans a huge advantage in 2026.  The Democrats are expected to do well next year; historically, sixth-year midterms (which essentially is what 2026 is) are bloodbaths for the party holding the White House, and so Democrats winning a dozen or more House seats is out of the question.  Right now, though, all they need to do is win three seats to get a majority...requiring them to win the full dozen would be a huge disadvantage, and quite frankly, there's not a lot the Democrats can do to stop this if Texas & Ohio's legislatures want do this.  There are mechanisms at their disposal (relying upon Court orders, particularly in Texas where a VRA lawsuit is likely) or a filibuster (again, in Texas this is conceivable though there are ways to break one), but that's not much.  If it doesn't happen, or doesn't happen to the same degree, it'll be because House Republican incumbents didn't want it.  Redrawing carries risk, potentially watering down your own district with new voters that makes you vulnerable to a primary or potentially what is referred to as a dummymander (where you gerrymander a district and you make it too marginal so that you end up losing all your seats like Arkansas Democrats did in 2012 or Iowa Republicans did in 2006)...congressional incumbents, who shouldn't have a lot of sway in these things but do, can sometimes veto a more aggressive plan.

But the best option for Democrats is to try to counter with a redraw in a state they are in charge of, and this is where the problem lies: Democrats don't have nearly as many options as Republicans do.  Gerrymandering is one of those situations where people come back with "both sides do it" to try & say this is a problem that only has villains, and that's somewhat true.  If you look at the states of Illinois, Oregon, New Mexico, & Nevada, it's pretty clear the Democrats are drawn with maps that heavily favor their party, in the latter three enough that the Republicans surely should have one more seat, and in the former maybe 2-3.  But these are really the only clear examples of the Democrats having a partisan gerrymander for Congress.  A Princeton University study assigned a letter grade to each state on how fairly their districts are drawn.  Of the 15 states that they gave "F" grades to, 4 of them had a Democratic bias (the four states I just mentioned) while nine had a Republican advantage (Utah, Kansas, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, & Texas).  And honestly I don't think the Princeton goes far enough in condemning the Republicans.  Tennessee is an "F" grade due to non-compactness, but it's also very clearly an unfair partisan map: Davidson County, home to Nashville, has 715k people, enough for a congressional district if you throw a couple people from a neighboring suburban county, and it went for Kamala Harris by 27-points...pretending that it not getting a Democratic representative isn't a partisan gerrymander is idiotic.  Same with Arkansas (Little Rock should be a pink district), Indiana (Indianapolis suburbs should get to be at least one full pink/purple district), Iowa (Des Moines should be a blue seat, though in 2026 it's possible the lack of a blue seat for Democrats in Des Moines becomes a dummymander blessing), Kentucky (the Louisville suburbs & Lexington should make another blue district), and Missouri (the St. Louis suburbs shouldn't be split in two the way that they are, making Ann Wagner's seat purple).  You can quibble that there are some states that have more of a partisan lean than they should to the blue (Maryland, in particular, stands out as a state you could easily draw another GOP district), but by-and-large this map is clear.  While the Democrats get maybe at most 5-6 seats from clearly unfair gerrymandering in "F" rated states, Republicans in "F" rated states probably get 16-17 seats.  Throw in that Tennessee, Iowa, & Kentucky, at the very least should have one more blue district, and Arkansas, Missouri, & Indiana should at least have another swingy seat (that would be vulnerable in a sixth-year midterm), and you're looking at the Republicans headed into 2026 with a 15-seat advantage BEFORE the GOP redraws OH/TX.

The Democrats only have limited options, though, on how to maximize their districts.  Democrats do not have a lot of trifectas in states that aren't already maximized.  Really, the only ones that come to mind are California, New York, & Maryland; Wisconsin could be redrawn if they can successfully woo the liberal-leaning Supreme Court (so far no luck, despite it being a pretty obvious gerrymander) and Virginia is an option if the Democrats do well in November, but by-and-large there's not a lot of places you could make a gain without risk.  

State Rep. Alex Lee (D-CA)

Gov. Gavin Newsom, though, is one of the people in a position to land a punch against OH/TX, though, and seems pretty adamant that he's going to try (likely to bolster his 2028 presidential options, but who cares if the end result is good for all involved).  California is a beast in terms of punishing Republicans.  The state has 9 Republicans in the House right now, but you could easily draw a map that eliminates virtually all of them, a situation where 6-8 of the seats would flip blue without much worry (basically nullifying everything Republicans are doing in Texas & Ohio).  The problem isn't the maps not being there, but the state had independent redistricting committees that make this a challenge (this would also be an issue in Virginia if the Dems get the seats in November).  Newsom has floated changing the law through a special election, something that is certainly a possibility though the timing gets tricky given that you'd have to get all of this done in time for the June primary next year.  It's also possible that Newsom could try to work with the state legislature to pass a map and say "try to stop us" when the lawsuits pile up.

But California legislators seem reluctant to join him.  State Rep. Alex Lee, a Democrat in the California Assembly, said on Twitter (in regard to Newsom saying this) "Respectfully...why?  CA independent citizen redistricting (imperfect) is model for the nation.  The legislature became Dem supermajority because voters moved left organically.  Reps resort to cheating to win.  We win by running clear platform for the working class & delivering."

And in response to State Rep. Alex Lee, I say (respectfully): stop being a wuss, politics ain't beanbag.  The Republicans are ripping families out of homes, stealing food from children, and destroying public institutions ranging from the Department of Education to PBS like a looter pulling copper out of an abandoned house.  Looking at this and saying "why can't we all just play fair" while doing nothing when you have actual power to counteract what they're doing in Texas & Ohio is proof you're not ready for this moment, and deserve a primary challenge (and I don't say that lightly-not every disagreement deserves a primary challenge).  The Republicans already have geographic advantages that we can't really remove on our own in the electoral college and the Senate...we don't need to add additional hurdles in the House just on principle.  If you want gerrymandering to end (and I do), you have to win the seats to do it, and then demand your incumbents pass it on a federal level so that what's good for Washington is also good for Tennessee and Georgia and Kansas.  Gov Newsom is right (and Kathy Hochul & Wes Moore, don't think I don't notice you haven't said anything-I expect you to start shouting and exploring redraws in your states too)-we need to be willing to play in the mud here, and use the limited tools at our disposal to win the House next year.  The fight's already not fair, and it's not acceptable to say "the rules aren't fair" and then just lose in protest.