It has long been obvious that North Carolinaβs Republican-controlled legislature is impervious to shame, but a vote by Republican lawmakers in Indiana this week should deeply embarrass Republican lawmakers here.
Twenty-one of Indianaβs Republican state senators joined 10 Democrats on Thursday to reject President Donald Trumpβs push for a mid-decade redistricting. The proposed new map likely would have shifted Indianaβs U.S. House delegation from 7-2 in Republicansβ favor to 9-0 Republican.
The vote was a setback for Trump, who is urging Republican-controlled states to further gerrymander their congressional districts to prevent Democrats from winning control of the U.S. House in 2026. Legislatures in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina have gone along, but enough Indiana Republicans refused.
One of them, state Sen. Spencer Deery, said he voted no to preserve confidence in elections. βThe power to draw election maps is a sacred responsibility directly tied to the integrity of our elections and the peopleβs faith in our constitutional system,β he said.
What a striking contrast that is to the behavior of North Carolinaβs Republican lawmakers.
State Senate leader Phil Berger, a Rockingham County Republican, urged his caucus to comply with Trumpβs call to redistrict. He said it was necessary to prevent Democrats from obstructing Trumpβs agenda.
But Berger also had his own concerns. It was reported that Berger, now facing a tough primary, could earn a Trump endorsement if he pushed the redistricting through. He did so in October, and the endorsement came this week.
House Speaker Destin Hall also caved to Trumpβs demand that North Carolinaβs districts be further stacked in his favor. The new map passed the House in October along party lines.
Hall falsely cast the new map as a response to California Gov. Gavin Newsomβs call for a referendum to allow a redrawing of Californiaβs districts. But Newsom only acted after Texas redistricted to create five additional districts favoring Republicans.
βOur state wonβt stand by while Democrats like Gavin Newsom redraw districts to aid in their effort to obtain a majority in the U.S. House,β Hall said in a statement. βWe will not allow them to undermine the will of the voters and President Trumpβs agenda.β
So, Hall went ahead and undermined the will of the voters. Polls show that Trump and his agenda are underwater in North Carolina.
The redrawn North Carolina map is expected to produce another Republican U.S. House seat in an evenly divided state where Republicans have already gerrymandered their way to a lopsided 10-4 advantage.
During the Senateβs floor debate on the new districts, Sen. Jay Chaudhuri, a Wake County Democrat, said, βThis map represents the highest and most egregious form of unadulterated and unfettered partisan power grabs Iβve witnessed in my nine years serving in the Senate.β
Sen. Terence Everitt, another Wake County Democrat, used even stronger language. βHistory will remember the day fascism came to North Carolina,β he told the Republican senators. βAnd yβall couldnβt wait to get on your knees.β
In a remarkable turn, Everittβs condemnation brought him a rebuke from Senate Rules Chair Bill Rabon, a Southport Republican. In a letter to Everitt, Rabon, said the Democratβs words violated the Senateβs decorum. Meanwhile, manipulating congressional districts to appease Trump and deprive voters of their voice is, in Rabonβs view, not offensive.
Trump and Vice President JD Vance leaned on Indianaβs Republican senators who opposed drawing a new map, but those senators chose to do what was right and fair. One who stood up to Trump, Republican Sen. Mike Bohacek, said, βWe donβt bend a knee to bullying and threats.β
North Carolinaβs Republican lawmakers cannot say the same.
Associate opinion editor Ned Barnett can be reached at 919-404-7583, or nbarnett@newsobserver.com
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) β Indianaβs Republican-led senate voted against a redrawn congressional map Thursday that would have favored their party in the 2026 elections, despite months of pressure by President Donald Trump for a rare mid-cycle redistricting.
Twenty-one senators from the Republican supermajority and all 10 of the chamberβs Democrats voted down the redistricting proposal. Trump has urged GOP-led states to gerrymander their U.S. house districts ahead of the midterms to create more winnable seats for Republicans. Itβs an unusual move, since the district boundaries are usually adjusted based on the census every 10 year.
Ahead of the vote, Trump again criticized Indiana senators who resisted the plan, repeating his vow to back primary challengers against them.
βIf Republicans will not do what is necessary to save our Country, they will eventually lose everything to the Democrats,β Trump wrote on social media. Some Indiana lawmakers have also received violent threats during the debate over the last month. Half of the state Senate is up for reelection in 2026.
Democratic state senators spoke against the redistricting legislation one by one during Thursdayβs session.
βCompetition is healthy my friends,β said Sen. Fady Qaddoura. βAny political party on earth that cannot run and win based on the merits of its ideas is unworthy of governing.β
Outside the state Senate chamber, redistricting opponents chanted βVote no!β and βFair maps!β while holding signs with slogans like βLosers cheat.β
The proposed map was designed to give Republicans control of all nine of Indianaβs congressional seats, up from the seven they currently hold. It would effectively erase Indianaβs two Democrat-held districts by splitting Indianapolis into four districts that extend into rural areas, reshaping U.S. Rep. Andrηarsonβs safe district in the city. It would also eliminate the northwest Indiana district held by U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan.
Despite Trumpβs push, support for gerrymandering in Indianaβs Senate was uncertain. A dozen of the 50 state senators had not publicly committed to a stance ahead of the vote.
Republican Sen. Greg Goode, previously undecided, signaled his displeasure with the redistricting plan. In firmly delivered remarks, he said some of his constituents objected to seeing their county split up or paired with Indianapolis. He expressed βloveβ for Trump but criticized what he called βover-the-top pressureβ from inside and outside the state.
Sen. Michael Young, another Republican, said the stakes in Congress justify redistricting, as Democrats are only a few seats away from flipping control of the U.S. House in 2026. βI know this election is going to be very close,β he said.
Republican Sen. Mike Gaskill, the redistricting legislationβs sponsor, showed Senators maps of congressional districts around the country, including several focused on Democratic-held seats in New England and Illinois. He argued other states gerrymander and Indiana Republicans should play by the same rules.
Nationally, mid-cycle redistricting so far has resulted in nine more congressional seats that Republicans believe they can win and six more congressional seats that Democrats think they can win. However, redistricting is being litigated in several states.
Texas, Missouri, Ohio and North Carolina quickly enacted new GOP-favorable maps, while California voters approved a new congressional map favorable to Democrats in response to Texas. In Utah, a judge imposed new districts that could allow Democrats to win a seat, saying Republican lawmakers violated voter-backed standards against gerrymandering.
The bill cleared its first hurdle Monday with a 6-3 Senate committee vote, although one Republican joined Democrats in opposing it and a few others signaled they might vote against the final version. The state House passed the proposal last week, with 12 Republicans siding with Democrats in opposition.
Among them was state Rep. Ed Clere, who said state troopers responded to a hoax message claiming a pipe bomb outside his home Wednesday evening. Indiana state police said βnumerous othersβ received threats but wouldnβt offer details about an ongoing investigation.
In an interview, Clere said these threats were the inevitable result of Trumpβs pressure campaign and a βwinner-take-all mentality.β
βWords have consequences,β Clere said.
The White House has mounted an aggressive lobbying push. Vice President JD Vance met twice with Indiana Senate GOP leaders, including the full caucus in October, and senators also visited him in Washington.
Trump joined a conference call with senators on Oct. 17 to make his own 15-minute pitch. State Sen. Andy Zay said White House political aides stayed in frequent contact for more than a month, even after he backed the bill, urging him to publicly support it and track developments among colleagues as part of a βfull-court press.β
A panel of federal judges on Wednesday allowed North Carolina to use a redrawn congressional map aimed at flipping a seat to Republicans, as part of a multi-state redistricting campaign ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The map targets the state’s only swing seat, currently held by Democratic Rep. Don Davis. The 1st District has been represented by Black members of Congress continuously for more than 30 years. The state legislature’s redrawing effort would shift the district from 48% to 44% Democratic, according to a CBS News analysis.
The three-judge panel unanimously denied preliminary injunction requests after a hearing in Winston-Salem in mid-November. The day after the hearing, the same judges separately upheld several other redrawn U.S. House districts that GOP state lawmakers initially enacted in 2023. They were first used in the 2024 elections, contributing to a Republican gain of three more congressional seats.
North Carolina is one of several states this year in which President Trump has directed the GOP to redraw maps in the middle of the decade β without courts requiring it β to avoid losing control of Congress in next year’s midterms. Besides North Carolina, Republican-led legislatures or commissions in Texas and Missouri have adopted new, more GOP-friendly maps. A lower court froze Texas’ new map last week, but the Supreme Court temporarily paused that ruling days later.
In California, voters countered by adopting new districts drawn to improve Democrats’ chances of winning more seats. And the Democratic-led Virginia General Assembly also has taken a step toward redistricting with a proposed constitutional amendment.
Democrats need to gain just three seats to win control of the House and impede Mr. Trump’s agenda.
North Carolina’s Republican-controlled General Assembly gave final approval to the state’s district changes on Oct. 22. Democratic Gov. Josh Stein’s approval wasn’t needed.
In a statement, North Carolina Republican Senate leader Phil Berger said the decision “thwarts the radical left’s latest attempt to circumvent the will of the people” in a state that voted for Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024.
“As Democrat-run states like California do everything in their power to undermine President Trump’s administration and agenda, North Carolina Republicans went to work to protect the America First Agenda,” Berger said.
Wednesday’s ruling covers two lawsuits.
In one filed by the state NAACP, Common Cause and voters, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds. They say Republican lawmakers unconstitutionally targeted North Carolina’s “Black Belt” instead of Democratic-voting areas with higher White populations because in 2024 they organized and voted for their preferred candidates and had sued over the 2023 configuration of the district.
In the second lawsuit, filed by voters, the case for a preliminary injunction rested in part on an argument that the use of five-year-old Census data due to the mid-decade redrawing of districts violates the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment’s one-person, one-vote guarantee. Additionally, it says lawmakers relied on race in mapmaking in violation of the First and 14th Amendments.
Attorneys for the Republican lawmakers defending the districts wrote that the objectives in redrawing the map were political, not racial, and were part of a “nationwide partisan redistricting arms race.” They rejected assertions about old Census data and retaliation over activities protected by the First Amendment, saying they don’t align with Supreme Court precedent.
Republicans now hold 10 of North Carolina’s 14 House seats β thanks in part to the 2023 map β and they hope to flip an 11th under the latest redistricting changes to the 1st District and the adjoining 3rd District. This effort happened in a state where Trump got 51% of the popular vote in 2024 and statewide elections are often close. Candidate filing in these and scores of other 2026 North Carolina races has been slated to begin Dec. 1.
The litigation challenging the October changes to the map said the boundaries approved by Republicans would result in the Black voting-age population in the 1st District falling from 40% in the 2023 map to 32%.
Republicans in part moved counties in the 1st District with significant Black -β and usually highly Democratic -β populations to the 3rd District currently represented by Republican Greg Murphy. Recent election results indicate both the 1st and 3rd would be favorable for Republicans.
Many of the same plaintiffs challenging the newly altered 1st District sued earlier over the House map enacted in 2023, alleging that Republicans unlawfully fractured and packed Black voters to weaken their voting power.
But the judges β all nominated by Republican presidents β recently dismissed the claims against five other congressional districts and three legislative districts, writing that those who sued failed to prove legislators drew the maps “with the discriminatory purpose of minimizing or canceling out the voting potential of Black North Carolinians.”
Based on overwhelming evidence that Republican lawmakers intended to racially gerrymander Congressional redistricting maps β because they said as much during public testimony early in the process β University of Houston law professor David Froomkin said he believes a district judgeβs order to block the maps should stand.
βThey said it was about race before they said it was about politics,β Froomkin said Monday.
But the maps approved by the state legislature in August, intended to flip five seats in favor of Republicans, will remain in place temporarily, per a Supreme Court ruling on November 21.
The decision, handed down by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, is a short-term pause while the high court decides which map Texas should use as a court battle over its legality plays out.Β The ruling came three days after a panel of district judges led by Donald Trump appointee Jeffrey Brown ruled on November 18 that Texas couldnβt use the maps approved in August, citing substantial evidence of racial gerrymandering.Β
Alitoβs decision adds yet another layer of confusion for candidates and voters in the upcoming March 2026 primaries, for which the filing deadline is December 8.Β Froomkin said Monday that βwe shouldnβt read too much intoβ Alitoβs temporary stay.
βThat is likely to be reconsidered by the entire Supreme Court in the coming weeks,β he said. βI imagine they will be sensitive to the December 8 filing deadline.Β I think thereβs a strong chance that the district court decision will stand and that candidates certainly should stay the course for now.β
Six of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents.
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the mid-decade redistricting effort after he received a letter suggesting he do so from the U.S. Department of Justice. Republican legislators at first said they needed to redraw the maps to fix racial gerrymandering that occurred in 2021. When confronted with federal court testimony showing that Republicans referred to the β21 maps as βrace-blind,β the GOP changed its tune.
Froomkin said they were given bad legal advice.
βThis is a relatively easy case in that there was a fairly explicit racial gerrymander here,β he said. βThe story here is really a story of the careless, sloppy lawyering that we have come to expect from this administration. This decision could have been easily avoided if Republicans had consulted good lawyers [at the onset] rather than shooting from the hip.β
Abbott appealed the district judgesβ decision to the Supreme Court and said in a press release last week that the maps approved by the legislature over the summer were drawn to βbetter reflect Texasβ conservative voting preferences β and for no other reason.βΒ
As it stands today with the temporary stay in place, Congressman Al Green, a Democrat from Houston, no longer lives in District 9, an area heβs represented for 20 years. He now lives in District 18. Green filed for the District 18 seat earlier this month, but if Brownβs ruling stands, Green goes back to District 9. Heβs one of several candidates in limbo pending a ruling from the Supreme Court.
The Congressional District 18 seat has been vacant since former Rep. Sylvester Turner died in March. Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee and former Houston City Council member Amanda Edwards are in a January 31 runoff to fill Turnerβs unexpired term. The special election runoff will be governed by the maps that were in place when Turner was elected in 2024.Β
Froomkin said back in August, after Texas Republicans pushed through their map, that βthe premise underlying this redistricting plan was that there was a racial problem with the prior map that needed to be corrected.β
The professor said MondayΒ that even though the Republicans walked back the messaging that they were redistricting to correct a racial gerrymander, the damage was already done.
βItβs quite rare for the state to announce that it has a racial objective behind a redistricting plan,β he said. βIn fact, announcing that the objective of a redistricting plan is to reallocate political power on the basis of race is exactly what a state is not supposed to do.β
βEven if, by some incredible coincidence, the mapmakers achieved the very result that they had been encouraged to reach by the DOJ without relying on racial demographic data, the fact that state officials characterized the planβs goals in racial terms is itself a sufficient reason to invalidate the plan as a racial gerrymander,β he added.
The opinion handed down last week from Brown, a district judge from Galveston, offered scathing remarks toward the Trump administration for micromanaging a stateβs redistricting process and chastised Governor Abbott and the elected Republicans for doing Trumpβs bidding.Β
βTo be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map,β Brown said in his opinion. βBut it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.β
The Brown ruling was a blow to Republicans who were hoping that the new maps would yield control of 30 of the stateβs 38 congressional districts and protect the narrow GOP majority in the U.S. House. Alitoβs βpauseβ issued a few days later didnβt garner much response from either political party, as it appears theyβre waiting to see what happens next, Froomkin said.Β
βI think that Judge Brownβs opinion for the district court was very careful, methodical and well-grounded in existing law and precedent. I would also observe that I really donβt think the Supreme Court has strong grounds to overrule the district court because the main issues are factual issues.β
The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily haltedΒ a lower court orderΒ that threw out Texas’ redrawn congressional maps in time for next month’s candidate filing deadline β as the state and its legal opponents square off on whether the maps were driven by politics or race.
Lawyers for Texas had asked the court earlier Friday to issue a stay and effectively let Texas return β at least for now β to the maps it passed over the summer, which redrew five Democratic House seats to make them more GOP-friendly.
Justice Samuel Alito granted the state’s request for an administrative stay, which means the lower court ruling is now on hold until the Supreme Court takes further action.Β
Texas is asking the high court to stay the lower court ruling on a longer-term basis by Dec. 1, noting thatΒ the deadlineΒ for candidates to file for next year’s primary elections is Dec. 8. He directed the plaintiffs who sued Texas to file their response by Monday afternoon.Β
The state’s redistricting push set of aΒ nationwide effort to redraw House maps ahead of next year’s midterms, with California shifting five congressional districts to the left, and Missouri and North Carolina each shifting a seat to the right. President Trump has pushed other GOP-led states to take similar steps.
But earlier this week, a panel of federal judges blocked Texas from using its new maps in a 2-1 ruling. The court’s opinion, penned by Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, sided with plaintiffs who argued the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.Β
The lower court pointed to a majority-White Democratic district that it said should have changed more if the process was driven purely by politics, not race.Β It also argued that some state officials, like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, seemed to move in response to a letter by a top Justice Department official warning them to redraw four existing districts that the federal government viewed as illegal “coalition” districts, where non-Hispanic White voters are in the minority, but no racial group has a majority.
In Friday’s request to the Supreme Court, the state of Texas pushed back on these arguments, asserting that the redistricting process was entirely partisan and wasn’t motivated by race.Β
“From the start, everyone recognized that the purpose of Texas’s redistricting effort was Republican political advantage,” the state wrote, quoting several elected Democrats who criticized the new maps on political grounds.
Texas said the lower court ruling “erroneously rests on speculation and inferences of bad faith.” And it said the state GOP’s chief mapmaker worked with data on partisanship rather than race.
In some cases, the state of Texas cited a dissent from the lower court ruling written by Judge Jerry Smith. The Reagan appointee drew headlines earlier this week for his fiery opinion, which used the phrase “I dissent” 16 times, called Brown an “unskilled magician,” said the majority opinion would deserve an “F” on a law school exam and accused the other judges of improperly leaving him out of the process.
The State of Texas also argued the lower court ruling could cause “chaos” since it was issued during the candidate filing period for next year’s races.
The redrawn map sparked a nationwide redistricting battle and is part of President Trump’s efforts to preserve a Republican majority in the House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections.Β
The Tuesday ruling came in a 2-1 vote by a three-judge panel. It dealt a blow to Republicans while Democrats celebrated it.
That’s because under the newly drawn map approved by Republicans, who stood to gain five congressional seats in Texas, the Democrats were facing a game of political musical chairs — some were set to retire or primary each other. Now, that may not have to happen. Β
“Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map,” which is illegal, the two federal judges who voted to block the map said in the ruling.
They also cited a U.S. Department of Justice letter to Gov. Greg Abbott from July about four coalition districts made up of Blacks and Latinos that include the 33rd Congressional District in North Texas, represented by Democrat Marc Veasey.Β
“DOJ threatened legal action if Texas didn’t immediately dismantle and redraw these districts, a threat based on their racial makeup. Notably, the DOJ letter targeted only majority non-white districts,” the judges’ ruling said. “Any mention of majority white districts, which DOJ presumably would have also targeted if its aims were partisan rather than racial, was conspicuously absent.”
There was no initial word on what the third judge on the panel said in dissenting. Β
Abbott slams judge’s “erroneous” decision
In a statement Tuesday, Abbott slammed the judges’ decision, calling it “clearly erroneous” and saying it “undermines the authority the U.S. Constitution assigns to the Texas Legislature by imposing a different map by judicial edict. The State of Texas will swiftly appeal to the United States Supreme Court.”Β
The state filed its appeal to the highest court late Tuesday afternoon.Β
CBS News Texas spoke with Democratic members of Congress from North Texas who praised the ruling.Β
“I totally agree with the court,” said Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Farmers Branch. “You know, what the Republicans and Greg Abbott did in Texas, to seeking to disenfranchise voters of color was egregious, and the court clearly agreed with that. This opinion is sharp, and it is clear, and it is concise.”Β
Veasey, whose district covers Fort Worth, said, “I feel like we’re on good legal grounds here. So, I feel confident, but, you know, I’m going to be again cautiously optimistic in watching what the Supreme Court says.”Β
“I’ve always made it clear that this was racial, and I know that some people want to run away from the race element, but the law protects it. We know that our Constitution recognizes and protects it,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas.
Texas Republicans criticize judges’ decision
CBS News Texas also spoke with Republicans Tuesday night who called the judges’ decision wrong and said they are putting their faith in the U.S. Supreme Court.Β
Aaron Reitz, a GOP candidate for Texas attorney general, said, “My view is similar to Gov. Abbott’s and Attorney General Paxton, who have criticized the decision because, in fact, race was not used to draw these lines. Only politics was used, which is the appropriate standard.”Β
Another candidate for attorney general, State Senator Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, said it was a partisan map.Β
“Quite simply, this is a partisan map that draws more Republican seats and that’s why we’re going to win,” said Middleton. “That is why we’re going to be victorious in this appeal before the Supreme Court.”Β
As a result of the ruling, Rep. Johnson and Rep. Veasey said they will run for re-election in the districts they represent now.Β
Crockett she said she still hasn’t decided whether to run for re-election in her district in Dallas or if she is going to run statewide for U.S. Senate. She said she is waiting for polling to come back and that she hopes to make a decision by Thanksgiving.Β
The key, Crockett said, is if the polling shows she can beat a Republican candidate in the general election next November.Β
“At the end of the day, if the numbers are strong that I am our best shot, then it’s bigger than my district, it’s bigger than the state of Texas,” said Crockett. “This is about the country because we know if we can change the Senate map in this country, then that’s where we start to get wins.”Β
Crockett said the only way she or another Democrat can win is if they attract new voters, people who haven’t gone to the polls before, and not simply by attracting Republicans who cross the political aisle.
After a panel of federal judges in Texas this week struck down that stateβs recently redrawn congressional maps, voters in California might be wondering if that means the Golden State will halt its own mid-decade redistricting plan.
After all, when Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats began talking about redistricting early on, they framed it as a counter to the gerrymandering in Texas that was meant to benefit Republicans there. In selling the idea to voters that California should adopt new maps that benefit Democrats, Newsom said, just before he signed a bill to call the special election, βWeβre responding (to) what occurred in Texas; weβre neutralizing what occurred.β
However, now that Texas may not be able to move forward with its redistricting plan β the recent decision could still be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court β some voters may wonder if California ought to proceed with its new maps.
Newsomβs office confirmed that California can still go forward with its plan because it is not contingent on what happens in any other state.
Thatβs because on the day the California Legislature passed bills to call for a special election and put new maps before voters, language that said Californiaβs new maps would be implemented βonly if Texas, Florida, or another state adopts a new congressional district mapβ was removed. At the time, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said that wording was removed because Texas had, by then, voted to redistrict.
βBecause Texas Republicans have voted,β spokesperson Nick Miller said in an August email, βthe original trigger language in our measure is no longer necessary.β
βTo make sure the measure is clear to California voters when they have the final say, it has been removed,β he added.
Some voters may still be surprised, though, thinking California would only move forward with redistricting if Texas does. The title of the ballot measure had stated that Proposition 50 βauthorizes temporary changes to congressional district maps in response to Texasβ partisan redistricting.β
βThere is more than one reason that Californians may feel misled, including the reason for (our) lawsuit,β Mike Columbo, the lead attorney in a case challenging the stateβs new congressional maps, said in an email.
That lawsuit β brought by California Republicans, and which the U.S. Department of Justice later joined β alleged Californiaβs maps are unconstitutional because districts were racially gerrymandered. A spokesperson for Newsom previously expressed confidence that the state will prevail in court.
Asked if California still plans to redistrict in light of this weekβs ruling on the Texas maps, Newsomβs office responded with a statement from the governor: President Donald Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott βplayed with fire, got burned β and democracy won. This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.β
To be clear: Texas has filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 2-1 decision by the federal district court judges. Should the nationβs highest court ultimately side with Texas, the maps that Abbott is pushing for could be implemented after all.
Meanwhile, irrespective of the Texas case, thereβs still the matter of the Republicansβ lawsuit challenging Californiaβs maps.
With that case still pending, voters and candidates alike may be asking what this means for California and the 2026 midterm elections. When will they know what the districts look like?
After all, a key date for candidates is coming up: Starting Dec. 19, candidates who donβt want to pay the filing fee to run for a House seat can begin gathering voter signatures to have the fee waived.
Knowing by then what the boundaries are for the district theyβre running in is important, said Columbo.
βIt will create a problem for voters and those candidates if the districts change after that date,β he said.
His team is seeking a preliminary injunction and requesting that Californiaβs current congressional maps β used in the 2024 elections β remain in place until a final decision is rendered about the legality of those established by Proposition 50.
A three-judge panel will hear the matter on Dec. 3, and attorneys for the plaintiffs have asked for a decision on the preliminary injunction by Dec. 5 so that if the losing side appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court would have two weeks to weigh in before Dec. 19, Columbo said.
βThe reason we are asking for such a quick decision is to avoid the confusion and disruption that would occur if we donβt have a decision by Dec. 19 and then later, the court determines that the maps are unconstitutional,β he said.
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School who has taught courses on constitutional law and election law, said in these types of cases, a court generally will indicate which map shall be used for the next election while a case is still being heard.
βPeople need to know which lines are in place before they have to declare their candidacy,β Levinson said. βJudges will have to give some indication about whether or not the new lines can be used. That will obviously have huge implications for who runs, in which district and what the contest looks like.β
βWe just need to know which lines to use,β she added. βBut the case doesnβt need to have a final resolutionβ yet.
In the meantime, candidates have already started announcing their plans to run in districts based on the Proposition 50 maps. With Californiaβs June 2 primary election just over six months away, a number of candidates have started fundraising and seeking endorsements.
One day after a Trump-appointed federal judge helped toss out Texas’ redistricting effort, a Reagan-appointed judge penned a heated and invective-filled dissent accusing his fellow jurist of “cherry-picking of the highest order.”
A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that Texas must set aside the new congressional maps that it drew earlier this year, with Judge Jeffrey Brown writing for the majority that the map β which would create five new GOP-friendly House seats β was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling was issued by Brown and Judge David Guaderrama, nominated to the bench by President Trump and former President Barack Obama, respectively. The state of Texas quicklyΒ appealed the rulingΒ to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling could upend this year’s nationwide redistricting gambit. Multiple states have followed Texas’ lead and redrawn their maps, including California, which made five congressional districts more friendly to Democrats in response.Β
The panel’s third member, Judge Jerry Smith, filed his response on Wednesday, writing the phrase “I dissent” some 16 times over the course of his 104-page opinion.
Smith, nominated to the bench by former President Ronald Reagan in 1987, accused the two other judges of issuing the ruling without giving him enough time to respond, which he called an “outrage.” He wrote that in the days prior to the ruling, Brown sent him a pair of drafts that were more than 160 pages long, only offered a few days to react, and didn’t wait for Smith to write his dissent.
“In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved,” Smith wrote.
The dissent β which started by warning readers, “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night!” β also attacked the opinion itself in often-harsh terms. He called Brown an “unskilled magician,” compared his reasoning to a “bizarre multiple-choice question from hell,” and called the ruling the “most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed.”
At one point, when discussing the court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction, Smith writes: “If this were a law school exam, the opinion would deserve an ‘F.’”Β
Race or politics?
At the heart of Smith and Brown’s disagreement is whether Texas lawmakers redrew the state’s House districts for partisan reasons or racial reasons.Β
The map-drawing effort began after Mr. Trump and his allies pushed Texas officials over the summer to create as many as five new GOP-leaning seats, as Republicans fight to hold onto a razor-thin House majority in next year’s midterms.Β
At one point during that gambit, Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a letter alleging that a handful of the state’s existing districts were illegal “coalition” districts where non-Hispanic White voters are in the minority but no single racial group has a majority.
Tuesday’s majority opinion, penned by Brown, said that Abbott “explicitly directed the Legislature to redistrict based on race” and “repeatedly stated that his goal was to eliminate coalition districts and create new majority-Hispanic districts.”Β
The court concluded that the state’s redistricting effort was unconstitutional because it was driven by racial considerations, not pure politics. It’s legal for lawmakers to redraw maps for partisan reasons, Brown wrote, but racially gerrymandered maps can be challenged in court.Β
Smith disagreed, pointing to evidence that he said shows the new Texas maps were actually driven mainly by partisan politics rather than race.Β
The judge cited testimony from one of the mapmakers, Adam Kincaid, who explained at length why he made certain decisions to shift around the boundaries of congressional districts. Smith said Kincaid “had a perfectly legitimate and candidly partisan explanation for his every decision.”
Smith also noted at one point that California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who pushed to redraw his state’s maps in response to Texas, “took a victory lap” after this week’s ruling.
“That tells you all that you need to knowβthis is about partisan politics, plain and simple,” Smith said.
In response Wednesday night, Newsom wrote on X: “This judge says California’s redistricting in response to Texas was overwhelmingly partisan. Yes, ours was. That was the ENTIRE POINT!”
Smith claimed the “main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom.” He alleged Soros, the liberal megadonor, and his son, Alex Soros, “have their hands all over this,” claiming several lawyers and experts for the plaintiffs have links to groups that have received funding from the Soros family’s Open Society Foundations.
And Smith warned that, if the decision stands, it could disrupt next year’s congressional races.
“As a legal and practical matter, Judge Brown’s injunction turns the Texas electoral and political landscape upside down,” he said. “It creates mayhem, chaos, misinformation, and confusion.”
The League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the plaintiffs, said Smith’s claim that the redistricting was purely political is “flatly contradicted by the record.” The group also rejected Smith’s claim that the ruling would lead to “chaos,” saying the “true risk would be allowing an unlawful, racially discriminatory map to stand.”
“Protecting voters from racial discrimination is not activism; it is a constitutional obligation,” LULAC CEO Juan ProaΓ±o said. “The majority acted responsibly to uphold the law and safeguard the rights of millions of Texans.”
CBS News has reached out to Brown and the Open Society Foundations for comment.
As President Donald Trump laid it out to reporters this summer, the plan was simple.
Republicans, the president said, were βentitledβ to five more conservative-leaning U.S. House seats in Texas and additional ones in other red states. The president broke with more than a century of political tradition in directing the GOP to redraw those maps in the middle of the decade to avoid losing control of Congress in next yearβs midterms.
Four months later, Trumpβs audacious ask looks anything but simple. After a federal court panel struck down Republicansβ new map in Texas on Tuesday, the entire exercise holds the potential to net Democrats more winnable seats in the House instead.
βTrump may have let the genie out of the bottle,β said UCLA law professor Rick Hasen, βbut he may not get the wish heβd hoped for.β
Trumpβs plan is to bolster his partyβs narrow House margin to protect Republicans from losing control of the chamber in next yearβs elections. Normally, the presidentβs party loses seats in the midterms. But his involvement in redistricting is instead becoming an illustration of the limits of presidential power.
Gov. Greg Abbott announces his re-election campaign for Texas governor in Houston, Sunday, Nov. 9, 2025. (Jason Fochtman/Houston Chronicle via AP)
Gov. Greg Abbott announces his re-election campaign for Texas governor in Houston, Sunday, Nov. 9, 2025. (Jason Fochtman/Houston Chronicle via AP)
Playing with fire
To hold Republicansβ grip on power in Washington, Trump is relying on a complex political process.
Redrawing maps is a decentralized effort that involves navigating a tangle of legal rules. It also involves a tricky political calculus because the legislators who hold the power to draw maps often want to protect themselves, business interests or local communities more than ruthlessly help their party.
And when one party moves aggressively to draw lines to help itself win elections β also known as gerrymandering β it runs the risk of pushing its rival party to do the same.
Thatβs what Trump ended up doing, spurring California voters to replace their map drawn by a nonpartisan commission with one drawn by Democrats to gain five seats. If successful, the move would cancel out the action taken by Texas Republicans. California voters approved that map earlier this month, and if a Republican lawsuit fails to block it, that map giving Democrats more winnable seats will remain in effect even if Texasβ remains stalled.
βDonald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won,β California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, posted on X after the Texas ruling, mentioning his Republican counterpart in Texas along with the president.
Rep. Kevin Kiley, a Republican whose northern California district would be redrawn under the stateβs new map, agreed.
βIt could very well come out as a net loss for Republicans, honestly when you look at the map, or at the very least, it could end up being a wash,β Kiley said. βBut itβs something that never should have happened. It was ill-conceived from the start.β
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a rally with Harris County Democrats at the IBEW local 716 union hall in Houston, on Saturday, Nov. 8, 2025. (AP Photo/Karen Warren)
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a rally with Harris County Democrats at the IBEW local 716 union hall in Houston, on Saturday, Nov. 8, 2025. (AP Photo/Karen Warren)
For Trump, a mix of wins and losses
Thereβs no guarantee that Tuesdayβs ruling on the Texas map will stand. Many lower courts have blocked Trumpβs initiatives, only for the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court to put those rulings on hold. Texas Republicans immediately appealed Tuesdayβs decision to the high court, too.
Even before Tuesday, Trumpβs push for mid-decade redistricting was not playing out as neatly as he had hoped, though he had scored some apparent wins. North Carolina Republicans potentially created another conservative-leaning seat in that battleground state, while Missouri Republicans redrew their congressional map at Trumpβs urging to eliminate one Democratic seat. The Missouri plan faces lawsuits and a possible referendum that would force a statewide vote on the matter.
Trumpβs push has faltered elsewhere. Republicans in Kansas balked at trying to eliminate the stateβs lone swing seat, held by a Democratic congresswoman. Indiana Republicans also refused to redraw their map to eliminate their two Democratic-leaning congressional seats.
After Trump attacked the main Indiana holdout, state Sen. Greg Goode, on social media, he was the victim of a swatting call over the weekend that led to sheriffβs deputies coming to his house.
Trumpβs push could have a boomerang effect on Republicans
The bulk of redistricting normally happens once every 10 years, following the release of new population estimates from the U.S. Census. That requires state lawmakers to adjust their legislative lines to make sure every district has roughly the same population. It also opens the door to gerrymandering maps to make it harder for the party out of power to win legislative seats.
Inevitably, redistricting leads to litigation, which can drag on for years and spur mid-decade, court-mandated revisions.
Republicans stood to benefit from these after the last cycle in 2021 because they won state supreme court elections in North Carolina and Ohio in 2022. But some litigation hasnβt gone the GOPβs way. A judge in Utah earlier this month required the state to make one of its four congressional seats Democratic-leaning.
Trump broke with modern political practice by urging a wholesale, mid-decade redraw in red states.
Democrats were in a bad position to respond to Trumpβs gambit because more states they control have lines drawn by independent commissions rather than by partisan lawmakers, the legacy of government reform efforts.
But with Newsomβs push to let Democrats draw Californiaβs lines successful, the party is looking to replicate it elsewhere.
Next up may be Virginia, where Democrats recaptured the governorβs office this month and expanded their margins in the Legislature. A Democratic candidate for governor in Colorado has called for a similar measure there. Republicans currently hold 9 of the 19 House seats in those two states.
Overall, Republicans have more to lose if redistricting becomes a purely partisan activity nationally and voters in blue states ditch their nonpartisan commissions to let their preferred party maximize its margins. In the last complete redistricting cycle in 2021, commissions drew 95 House seats that Democrats would have otherwise drawn, and only 13 that Republicans would have drawn.
The State Capitol is seen in Austin, Texas, on June 1, 2021. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)
The State Capitol is seen in Austin, Texas, on June 1, 2021. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)
Gerrymanderingβs unintended consequences
On Tuesday, Republicans were reappraising Trumpβs championing of redistricting hardball.
βI think if you look at the basis of this, there was no member of the delegation that was asked our opinion,β Republican Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas told reporters.
Incumbents usually donβt like the idea of radically redrawing districts. It can lead to what political experts call a βdummymanderβ β spreading the opposing partyβs voters so broadly that they end up endangering your own incumbents in a year, like 2026, that is expected to be bad for the party in power.
Incumbents also donβt like losing voters who have supported them or getting wholly new communities drawn into their districts, said Jonathan Cervas, who teaches redistricting at Carnegie Mellon University and has drawn new maps for courts. Democratic lawmakers in Illinois and Maryland have so far resisted mid-decade redraws to pad their majorities in their states, joining their GOP counterparts in Indiana and Kansas.
Cervas said thatβs why it was striking to watch Trump push Republicans to dive into mid-decade redistricting.
βThe idea theyβd go along to get along is basically crazy,β he said.
___
Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti and Kevin Freking in Washington contributed to this report.
A panel of three federal judges ruled Tuesday that Texas canβt use the congressional redistricting maps approved in August β citing substantial evidence of racial gerrymandering β thwarting President Donald Trumpβs plan to maintain a Republican majority in Washington.Β
The decision was hailed as a victory by Texas Democrats but political experts said it creates mass chaos and, βIf youβre a candidate, youβre in a pickle.βΒ
βItβs confusing for candidates, itβs confusing for voters, itβs confusing for the whole political system,β said University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus.Β
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who ordered the redistricting effort after he received a letter suggesting he do so from Trumpβs Department of Justice, issued a statement following the ruling, saying he would swiftly appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.Β
βThe Legislature redrew our congressional maps to better reflect Texasβ conservative voting preferences β and for no other reason,β Abbott said. βAny claim that these maps are discriminatory is absurd and unsupported by the testimony offered during 10 days of hearings. This ruling is clearly erroneous and undermines the authority the U.S. Constitution assigns to the Texas Legislature by imposing a different map by judicial edict.β
It throws a wrench in the plans of some candidates who have already filed to seek office under the assumption that the new maps would hold. That includes longtime U.S. Rep. Al Green, D-Houston, who was drawn out of District 9 and announced recently he would run instead for District 18.Β
Immediately after the redistricting map was approved in August, Texas Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park, filed for Congress in Greenβs District 9, presumably assuming that he could win a congressional district that favored GOP voters.Β
So what happens to the 2026 midterms?Β Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, ordered Tuesday that the 2026 Congressional election βshall proceed under the map that the Texas Legislature enacted in 2021.βΒ
Candidates who need to change their plans will have to do so quickly. The filing deadline is December 8.Β βItβs really all up to the Supreme Court now,β Rottinghaus said.
The U.S. Supreme Court is also deliberating a redistricting case out of Louisiana that could result in weakening the Voting Rights Act, the professor pointed out.Β
βIf the Supreme Court says the Voting Rights Act doesnβt exist anymore, then this will go away,β he said. βItβs hard to know what they will do, but theyβve been hinting at that. The court has to make that determination.βΒ
The Supreme Court can take as long as it wants to make a decision on Texasβ redistricting maps but it will likely be pressured by Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton to make an emergency ruling before the December filing deadline, said Nancy Sims, a UH political science lecturer.Β
βTo me, it wonβt be solved until the filing deadline,β Sims said. βItβs just chaos. Itβs massively chaotic. Itβs really challenging for the candidates to know what to do. If youβre Al Green or Briscoe Cain, youβre in a pickle, and your donors are in a pickle. Itβs a wait-and-see for a couple of weeks, with a holiday in the middle.βΒ
Green, Cain, and Austin Democrats Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett β whose congressional districts were essentially merged together under the new map β and several other candidates are in a holding pattern, Rottinghaus added, as they wait to see what the Supreme Court does before they change their filing paperwork.Β
Congressional District 18 candidates Christian Menefee and Amanda Edwards, who are facing off in a January 31 runoff, are unaffected since that election is a special-called contest to fill the unexpired term of the late former U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner. But it does produce uncertainty around who the runoff winner faces in the primary and when that election will be.Β
Menefee said in a statement Tuesday that the federal judge panel βconfirmed what we already knew: this Trump-backed map was intentionally drawn to silence Black and Brown voters.β Β
βI hope the [Supreme] Court stands on the side of the Constitution and protects voters of color instead of letting politicians gut democracy in broad daylight. This moment will define what democracy means in 2025,β he said.Β
The Supreme Court could delay the primary to May while theyβre litigating the map, Rottinghaus said. Theyβve done it before.
βThatβs why Ted Cruz is the junior senator from Texas,β he said. βIn 2012, they pushed the primary off from March to the May deadline. Ted Cruz was way behind but a few months later, he was neck and neck. That pushed it to a runoff and he got the win.βΒ
The three judges who voted to block the maps approved in August β Brown; Judge David Guaderrama, a Barack Obama appointee; and Judge Jerry Smith, a Ronald Reagan appointee β offered scathing remarks in their ruling toward not just Trump but Abbott and Texas Republicans.Β
βThe justices were very unhappy with Trumpβs political involvement in this,β Rottinghaus said. βThey basically implied that because the president asked for this to happen, it sullied the whole process in a partisan way that is a prima facie outcome that this is all racially gerrymandered.β
βTheyβre very vocal about how the Trump administration is being unfair and misleading when it comes to the arguments they have made,β he added. βYou have to read this as a full-on rebuke of Donald Trump. They also slap the Legislature and Greg Abbott around a little bit, basically saying that they did what Trump wanted, which is bad enough, but there are also all these mistakes they made procedurally. The outcomes are definitely gerrymandered by race. Theyβre very critical.βΒ
Brown said in his ruling that βthe public perception of this case is that itβs about politics.βΒ
βTo be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map,β the ruling states.Β
Tuesdayβs decision a huge blow to Republicans who were hoping that the new maps would yield control of 30 of the stateβs 38 congressional districts and protect the narrow GOP majority in the U.S. House, Sims said.
βItβs common for a president to lose the midterms,β she said. βThe reason they went to this extreme with the mid-decade redistricting in the first place was to help try to shore up the House for the president and the Republican Party. The margins are so thin currently and the way to remedy that was to draw more Republican seats, and thatβs what they set out to do. Texas was first in line with our hands up, saying, Yes, sir.β
Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson appears to have a solid hold on the votes he needs to block redistricting, but Gov. Wes Moore has a narrow path to changing the vote.
WTOP’s Kate Ryan reports on how Maryland’s debate is simmering again as the governor calls for a redrawing of the maps ahead of the 2026 elections
Gov. Wes Moore (D) has a difficult, but not insurmountable, path to redraw the stateβs eight congressional districts β and it may hinge on the first-term Democratic executiveβs ability to win votes in the Senate.
With the House of Delegates apparently on board with the governor, Moore needs to find 24 votes in the 47-member Senate to add Maryland to the list of states redrawing their congressional maps to gain partisan advantage ahead of the 2026 elections. But Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) put his 34-member caucus on record against redistricting on Oct. 28 with aΒ three-page letterΒ outlining a series of arguments against it.
The Moore administration has quietly cast doubt on how much support Ferguson has within his own caucus, and insists the field is constantly shifting. But for now at least, based on interviews with a number of Senate Democrats, Ferguson appears to be on solid footing with a majority of his caucus.
βI think thatβs right,β said Sen. Cheryl C. Kagan (D-Montgomery County), vice chair of the Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee, of the current state of affairs.
Kagan said she is generally supportive of the idea of drawing maps that eliminate the last Republican congressional district β the congressional map currently favors Democrats, who hold seven of the stateβs eight U.S. House seats.
βIf I had a magic wand, I would like an eight-to-zero map,β Kagan said.
But she said the state is βsupremely unlikelyβ to contribute toward a national majority for her party, which has to be weighed against the threat of losing one or possibly two seats to Republicans, making Maryland βdetrimental to the cause of winning a Democratic majority.β
βThereβs an opportunity cost to this issue, because the time that weβre spending debating district lines should more wisely be spent on jobs, economic development, the climate crisis, civil rights, voting rights, health care, education and our budget challenges,β Kagan said. βThere are so many public policy issues in front of us. At some point, this feels like a risky distraction.β
Protesters with the Indivisible Maryland Coalition rally Nov. 7 in the State House hoping to get Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) to support redistricting. (Photo by Nicole Pilsbury/Maryland Matters)
While the Republican Caucus alsoΒ opposes midcycle redistricting, it is the Democratic caucus β which holds a 34-13 advantage in the Senate, and elected Ferguson to lead the body β that will determine the fate of the issue.
Maryland Matters sought interviews with more than 20 rank-and-file Senate Democrats β the bulk of the caucus. Roughly half agreed to an interview, though some asked to not be named. Others either declined an interview or did not respond to a request for comment.
Fergusonβs support β a broad term that includes senators who are merely deferential to their leader β appears to fall within a range of 20-25 of the Democratic Caucusβ 34 members,
A portion of that support comes from nearly a dozen lawmakers who make up his leadership team, including committee chairs and vice chairs.
βClearly, the Senate does not have a strong desire to do redistricting,β said Sen. Karen Lewis Young (D-Frederick), who described herself as leaning in support of Ferguson but βkeeping an open mind.β
Even those who said they favor midcycle redistricting acknowledge Fergusonβs advantage.
βThe caucus members were behind the Senate president with that [Oct. 28] letter,β said Sen. Arthur Ellis (D-Charles). βHe didnβt do that on his own, lot of discussions before that.β
But Ellis said events nationally have changed since Ferguson sent that letter three weeks ago.
Democrats, and in many cases their constituents, want to oppose President Donald Trump. But that visceral desire is tempered, for some, by concerns that doing so could backfire and inadvertently give Republicans more congressional seats.
βWe have to be very pragmatic and thoughtful as we pursue this,β said Sen. Ben Kramer (D-Montgomery). βI get the emotions that are in play. I understand that thereβs a lot of desire to push back on the administration. Iβm sure there are places where Maryland can participate in that. Iβm just not sure that this issue is one of those where weβre ultimately going to be a player.β
Kramer said he opposes the effort because of the risk of losing seats to Republicans or the courts tossing out new maps.
Ferguson has clear opponents, including Sen. Clarence K. Lam (D-Howard and Anne Arundel), whoΒ filed a bill in August calling for midcycle redistricting. Lam declined to comment for this story, but he isnβt alone.
βIβm hoping that we will call a special session to get this done right away,β said Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D-Prince Georgeβs). βWe cannot let Trump continue to do what heβs doing and let Democrats look weak β as though weβre doing nothing.β
Ellis agreed with Muse.
βSo to be honest, weβre taking it serious,β Ellis said. βWe thought our one seat wasnβt important β our extra one Republican seat β but obviously it is to the national discussion. So a lot of talk, a lot of movement β¦. Iβm not sure what the end result will be, but thereβs a lot of discussion going on right now.β
Ellis said heβs hearing from constituents who are βreaching out to me, like: βHey, join California, join the other states who are doing it.ββ
βI have to listen to my constituents, and I believe most of my colleagues believe the same, and so we are able to change our mind,β he said. βAnd if enough members on the caucus, Democratic caucus, change our minds, then it will happen.β
Ellis said he would vote for redistricting if a bill comes to the floor, but he doubts the issue will reach the full Senate.
βIf a bill comes on the floor of the Senate, yes, Iβll vote for it,β he said, before adding, βWe donβt bring things on the floor, being a super majority, thatβs going to fail.β
Moore could decide to call a special session before the legislature is scheduled to convene in mid-January. The governor convened a five-memberΒ redistricting advisory commission, led by U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), that held two meetings last week with a third scheduled Tuesday.
If called back into special session, lawmakers will first have to take up any overrides of Moore vetoes, including his veto of a bill creating a commission to study on reparations.
Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee Vice Chair Cheryl C. Kagan (D-Montgomery). (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)
In his veto message, Moore said the reparations commission would be redundant β ironic, Ellis said, given Mooreβs position on the creation of a redistricting panel.
βSo why is the redistricting commission good for this thing that he wants to do now, but when we pass the reparations commission, he says itβs a waste of time?β Ellis asked.
Ellis said he looks forward to being able to work on a redistricting effort.
βI also look forward to override his veto of the reparations commission bill,β he said.
A spokesperson for the governor did not respond to a request for comment for this story. But supporters of redistricting have other levers to pull to bring senators to their side.
Moore last week announced the creation of aΒ campaign slateΒ that would focus on supporting and electing Democratic lawmakers supportive of his agenda. Redistricting was not specifically highlighted, but the timing of the announcement came as his redistricting advisory panel was holding its first meeting, angering Democrats in the House and Senate.
National Democrats are entering the fray, too.Β In a letterΒ last Monday to the General Assembly, Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-4th) and Jamie Raskin (D-8th) lobbied hard for redistricting.
βWe can redistrict to make Maryland House seats more competitive in a way that counters the Trump national steamroller, and we believe such an effort can survive any legal attack,β the Congressmen wrote.
Ellis said a call from Hoyer solidified his position.
βWeβre not stiff, unyielding, people. I mean, we can be influenced, and we can change our minds, right?β Ellis said.
Muse said he spoke with the governorβs office about redistricting, and got calls from Hoyer and from Rep. Jim Clyburn (D- S.C.). βI just said that: βIβm where you are,ββ Muse said.
Fergusonβs letter made much of the potential legal challenges associated with drawing a new map.
A court-drawn map would be an extraordinary, but not without precedent. In 2002, the stateβs highest court struck down the stateβs legislative districts map with less than a month before the filing deadline for candidates, so the court drew its own map rather than send it back to lawmakers.
The congressional districts approved in 2022 followed a process prescribed by the Maryland Constitution. Because of that, it is not known if the court would feel the same sense of urgency if it struck down a new map.
Unspoken in Fergusonβs letter is the real concern that the court would not redraw the map but send it back to lawmakers with restrictions on how districts are drawn and what can and cannot be considered. Such an order could set an unwanted standard for future redistricting.
Hoyer and Raskin argue that the courts are limited in what they can do.
βWhile Senator Ferguson is obviously right that there is an element of uncertainty in all litigation, there are some well-established doctrines that courts follow out of deference to the legislatureβs constitutional power over redistricting,β Hoyer and Raskin wrote. βChief among these is the principle that, when a court strikes down a newly elected map as unlawful, the legislature must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to remedy the violation.β
Muse agreed, saying: βWhatever the judges do, weβre the Senate, and we write the laws.β
Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D-Prince Georgeβs) during a Feb. 28 news conference. (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)
Mooreβs redistricting push comes in response to President Donald Trumpβs push to get Republican-led states to redistrict early, with the goal of drawing more GOP-friendly districts, easing the partyβs effort to retain its hold on the House of Representatives in 2026.
Trump succeeded in Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott signed a new map into law in August. But California voters this month approved a new map that has the potential to cancel any gains in Texas.
But Republicans have also redrawn maps in Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Notably, court challenges are still underway in many red states.
Maryland has only the one seat in GOP hands that it could try to flip, the Eastern Shore-based 1st District held by Republican Andy Harris. Some argue the 6th District, which encompasses part of Montgomery County and the Western Maryland panhandle, is a competitive district. That seat is held by DemocraticΒ Rep. April McClain Delaney.
Sen. Charles E. Sydnor III (D-Baltimore County) said that anger from registered Republicans, who are outnumbered 2-1 by registered Democrats in Maryland, would be justified, if the state were to redraw its maps so that all eight districts lean left.
Sydnor said heβs sympathetic because he fought gerrymandering in his own county, after the county council packed voters of color into two majority-Black districts, which a court later overturned, determining that the map diluted the Black vote.
βIβm particularly sensitive to the feeling of one attempting to disenfranchise you. So, I donβt think itβs the right answer,β Sydnor said of midcycle redistricting.
By comparison, Sen. Mary-Dulany James (D-Harford) said that if a redistricting bill reached the floor in the Senate, her vote would depend on the map in front of her. She believes her district in Harford County, District 34, would be better off in a congressional district of Western Shore counties around Baltimore, not lumped in with the Eastern Shore, as it is today.
βI want to protect Harford County,β James said. βHarford County has been thrown about, and District 34 has been thrown about, in various maps over the years.β
The 1st District, in yellow, is the only one currently held by a Republican in Marylandβs congressional delegation. (Screenshot)Overall though, James said she thinks redistricting is risky, and βthe president of the senate has put his finger on the really great challenges facing Maryland if we were to consider redistricting.β
Other Senate Democrats told Maryland Matters they have yet to make up their minds, including Sen. Ben Brooks (D- Baltimore County).
βAre we talking about something thatβs going to make a major difference in Maryland? Or are we talking about something thatβs going to make an impact statement nationwide? Thatβs the conundrum,β Brooks said.
Brooks said he hears varying opinions from his constituents, but plenty of people are in favor, largely because they see Trumpβs policies as egregious.
βBecause of whatβs going on now nationally β the shutdown, even the tearing down of the East Wing. Itβs got a lot of people exercised,β Brooks said. βThe arresting people who are cutting grass, at Home Depot or at McDonaldβs. β¦ All of those things weigh heavily on fairness in the minds of people.β
As legislators weigh their decision, they also must consider the political leanings of their district.
In Anne Arundel County, Stephen A. Tillett, a minister, is challenging Senate Finance Chair Sen. Pamela Beidle in next yearβs Democratic primary. Tillett was a featured speaker at a recent State House rally demanding Ferguson pass a redistricting bill.
Sen. Nick Charles (D-Prince Georgeβs) said his constituents seem to broadly support redistricting, so he would feel comfortable voting for it. But he is also weighing the fact that the move could put Democrats in danger of losing a seat or two in the House.
βI can vote for it and the people in my district would love it,β Charles said. βBut thereβs possibilities that things could happen.β
SALT LAKE CITY — The most recent Democrat to represent Utah in Congress announced Thursday his bid to return to Washington after a judge adopted a new congressional map creating a heavily Democratic-leaning district in the state.
Former U.S. Rep. Ben McAdams will run in a new district centered on Salt Lake County, Utah’s population center and an island of Democratic support in an otherwise red state. He was once the county’s mayor, then its state senator, and represented much of the area within his previous congressional district from 2019 to 2021.
The new district is the result of a legal battle in which a judge struck down the map adopted after the 2020 census because the Republican-led Legislature had bypassed standards established by voters to ensure districts donβt deliberately favor a party, a practice known as gerrymandering. Late Monday, Judge Dianna Gibson again rejected a revised map drawn by lawmakers and adopted one from voting rights groups who were plaintiffs in the case.
With the ruling, Democrats are all but certain to flip a seat in Utah, where Republicans currently hold all four U.S. House districts.
Nationally, Democrats need to net three House seats next year to wrest control of the chamber from the GOP and impede President Donald Trumpβs agenda. Several Republican-led states have responded to calls from Trump to add winnable seats for the party through mid-decade redistricting. But Democrats have been fighting back to try to offset GOP gains.
McAdams, a moderate Democrat, could face a full slate of candidates to his political left who see an opportunity for Utah to send a more progressive politician to Capitol Hill. While in Congress, he was a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of centrist Democrats viewed widely as the partyβs most conservative House members.
State Sen. Kathleen Riebe also launched a bid for the seat this week. In her announcement, the former teacher pledged to be a strong voice for Democrats in Congress and an advocate for working families. She served on the Utah Board of Education from 2017 to 2018 and has been in the state Senate since 2019.
Competition is good for democracy, McAdams told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday. But he argued his experience and deep connections in the community make him the right person to represent the Salt Lake City area.
McAdams said he thinks Washington under Trump is broken and needs leaders who have shown they can stand up to the Republican president. He went on to criticize Trump for sending troops into cities, splitting apart immigrant families and prosecuting his political opponents.
βI think people know me. I am somebody who brings people together to get stuff done, but I’m also somebody who stands for what I believe in, and I’m not afraid to stand alone if that’s what’s required,β McAdams said, noting he voted to impeach Trump in 2019 despite knowing it could cost him reelection.
The following year, McAdams lost his reelection bid to former NFL player Burgess Owens, a Republican, by less than a percentage point. Owens was reelected in 2022, after the district was reconfigured to include more rural areas, and again in 2024.
During his 2018 campaign, McAdams described having anti-abortion views. He said he had deep personal beliefs about the sanctity of life but that decisions about terminating a pregnancy should be made by a woman in consultation with her doctors, family and faith counselors.
The former congressman said Thursday that the reality across the country has since changed dramatically, with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022.
βWe’re seeing women denied access to health care all across the country, even leading to preventable deaths in several tragic cases,β McAdams said. βBecause of that, I would vote to restore a woman’s right to choose and vote to codify Roe.β
He and Riebe are running in the new 1st Congressional District for the seat held by Republican Blake Moore. District lines and numbering changed significantly under the new map, meaning Moore’s northern Utah district is geographically very different from the new 1st District.
Matt Lusty, a spokesperson for Moore’s campaign, said the congressman will run again for one of Utah’s four seats.
Democratic state Sen. Nate Blouin told the AP on Thursday that he, too, is βleaning strongly towardsβ running in the new 1st District. Blouin said voters in Salt Lake County deserve a progressive voice and have βa generational opportunity to rewrite Utahβs narrative.β
___
Associated Press writer Mead Gruver contributed from Fort Collins, Colorado.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. β Evan Cragin, president of the Sacramento County Young Democrats, said he was initially hesitant to support his partyβs mid-decade push to redraw Californiaβs congressional map to favor Democrats.
Evan Cragin, president of the Sacramento County Young Democrats
Sacramento County Young Democrats/ Courtesy photo
The state in 2008 voted to create an independent redistricting commission in an effort to end gerrymandering. In August, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed Prop 50, a ballot measure that would temporarily override the commission and implement a redrawn map favoring Democrats.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. β Evan Cragin, president of the Sacramento County Young Democrats, said he was initially hesitant to support his partyβs mid-decade push to redraw Californiaβs congressional map to favor Democrats.
The state in 2008 voted to create an independent redistricting commission in an effort to end gerrymandering. In August, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed Prop 50, a ballot measure that would temporarily override the commission and implement a redrawn map favoring Democrats.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. β Evan Cragin, president of the Sacramento County Young Democrats, said he was initially hesitant to support his partyβs mid-decade push to redraw Californiaβs congressional map to favor Democrats.
The state in 2008 voted to create an independent redistricting commission in an effort to end gerrymandering. In August, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed Prop 50, a ballot measure that would temporarily override the commission and implement a redrawn map favoring Democrats.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. β Evan Cragin, president of the Sacramento County Young Democrats, said he was initially hesitant to support his partyβs mid-decade push to redraw Californiaβs congressional map to favor Democrats.
The state in 2008 voted to create an independent redistricting commission in an effort to end gerrymandering. In August, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed Prop 50, a ballot measure that would temporarily override the commission and implement a redrawn map favoring Democrats.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. β Evan Cragin, president of the Sacramento County Young Democrats, said he was initially hesitant to support his partyβs mid-decade push to redraw Californiaβs congressional map to favor Democrats.
The state in 2008 voted to create an independent redistricting commission in an effort to end gerrymandering. In August, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed Prop 50, a ballot measure that would temporarily override the commission and implement a redrawn map favoring Democrats.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. β Evan Cragin, president of the Sacramento County Young Democrats, said he was initially hesitant to support his partyβs mid-decade push to redraw Californiaβs congressional map to favor Democrats.
The state in 2008 voted to create an independent redistricting commission in an effort to end gerrymandering. In August, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed Prop 50, a ballot measure that would temporarily override the commission and implement a redrawn map favoring Democrats.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
