California voters have passed Proposition 50, CBS News projects, approving a measure backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats that will redraw the state’s congressional districts.
The measure is intended to make several Republican-held congressional districts in California more favorable to Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections in an effort to counter recent redistricting in states including Texas that favors Republicans.
Proposition 50’s passage drew swift reaction from high-profile opponents of the measure, including Republican political donor Charles Munger, Jr.
“For what looms for the people of California, I am saddened by the passage of Proposition 50,” Munger Jr. said. “But I am content in this, at least: that our campaign educated the people of California so they could make an informed, if in my view unwise, decision about such a technical but critical issue as redistricting reform, a decision forced to be made over such a very short time.”
Proposition 50 was approved by the Legislature and signed by Newsom on Aug. 21, allowing it to go before voters for a Nov. 4 special election.
Here’s what to know about Proposition 50 and California’s special election.
California Proposition 50 live election results
It could take several days to count all mail-in ballots, as California accepts ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days.
Reactions to Proposition 50 passing
Reactions from both sides quickly came pouring in once California voters passed Proposition 50.
Billionaire investor Tom Steyer has been a major supporter of the measure and called its approval “an enormous victory for our state, our country and our democracy.”
“In fact, voters all across the country tonight sent a clear signal tonight that when Democrats fight for working people and their interests, Democrats win,” Steyer said in a statement.
Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley, whose District 3 will be heavily impacted by the redrawn district boundaries, called the measure “a symptom of our country’s political divisions.”
“The reason I opposed Prop. 50, even as I also oppose what’s happened in other states, is because I believe fighting fire with fire burns everything down,” Kiley said. “With California’s new gerrymander, the redistricting arms race has no end in sight… It’s a race to the bottom that degrades democracy everywhere.”
What is Proposition 50?
Proposition 50 will replace California’s current congressional district maps that were drawn by the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission after the 2020 U.S. Census. New maps, crafted by the state Legislature, redraw the state’s congressional districts to make five Republican-held U.S. House seats in California more favorable for Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections.
California Democrats have called Proposition 50 a countermeasure to Texas’ recent redistricting push that was backed by President Trump and created five Republican-friendly congressional seats in that state.
California voters approved the creation of the independent redistricting commission earlier this century to oversee the congressional mapmaking process. The commission uses census data and public input to set district boundaries that reflect population changes and keep communities together.
If voters had rejected Proposition 50, California would have continued using its current congressional district boundaries until new maps are drawn by the redistricting commission after the 2030 Census.
Who urged voters to vote yes on Proposition 50?
Gov. Newsom and top Democratic leaders, including many who are trying to succeed him in California’s 2026 gubernatorial race, have championed Proposition 50.
Other major supporters of Proposition 50 include billionaire investors George Soros and Steyer, and former President Barack Obama, who featured in a Yes on 50 campaign ad, calling on voters to approve the ballot measure.
Supporters argue that Proposition 50 defends democracy and restores fairness after redistricting efforts in GOP-led states like Texas.
Others who oppose the initiative include Munger, Jr., who contributed more than $32.7 million, and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
Opponents argue that Proposition 50 is gerrymandering and that California should maintain its standard for fair redistricting through independent, citizen-led redistricting.
How Proposition 50 got on the ballot
Proposition 50 was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature earlier this year.
Lawmakers approved the measure during a special session in August, and Newsom’s signature set the stage for this statewide special election.
Which California districts would change with Proposition 50?
Among California’s 52 congressional districts, Democrats represent 43 while Republicans represent nine.
Proposition 50 was created to redraw congressional districts to make five of them currently held by GOP House members more favorable to being won by Democrats in next year’s midterms. Still, there is no guarantee that Democrats will win the seats even though voters have approved the new maps.
The five Republican-led congressional districts most targeted under Proposition 50 are Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s District 1, Rep. Kiley‘s District 3, Rep. David Valadao’s District 22, Rep. Ken Calvert’s District 41, and Rep. Darrell Issa’s District 48.
California’s approval of Proposition 50 sets in motion a redistricting plan that could result in pickups of five seats for Democrats in the Golden State. It’s an effort that may ripple beyond California’s borders — here’s an early look at some of Prop 50’s potential effects, not all of which are related to redistricting:
A win for Democrats
Prop 50 victory, among other things, notches a badly needed win for Democrats in the redistricting battle kicked off by President Trump earlier this year.
The president, seeking to gain up to five seats for Republicans to try to help them hold the House in the 2026 midterm elections, successfully urged Texas to undertake a mid-decade gerrymander. Newsom said he’d only go through with Prop 50 if Texas passed its new congressional map. In announcing the initiative, Newsom said Mr. Trump is “trying to rig the system,” adding “we have got to meet fire with fire.”
New lines would be temporary
The passage of the ballot measure, pending legal action, will result in a map drawn by California Democrats that takes five Republican congressional districts and makes them more favorable to Democrats. But it would only be used for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections.
After the 2030 U.S. Census, according to Prop 50, the gerrymandered maps would only be used until the nonpartisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission draws new congressional maps.
Newer maps that squeeze majority’s opponents across the country
More and more states have begun trying to squeeze partisan minorities further through redistricting before next year’s midterms. A CBS News poll in October found that among voters who plan to support Proposition 50, one reason they’re doing so is to oppose the Trump administration — which they also feel generally treats California worse than other states — and to oppose national Republicans.
California’s decision to redraw its maps has already begun to exert pressure on more GOP-led states to launch their own redistricting gambits. Besides Texas, lawmakers in Missouri and North Carolina have passed new maps in recent months that shift one district apiece toward Republicans, and Ohio is considering new maps.
Republicans in Indiana signaled last month that they didn’t have the votes to redraw their maps, but after weeks of pressure from Mr. Trump, GOP Gov. Mike Braun called the legislature into a special session to consider redistricting.
And in Maryland, Democratic Gov. Wes Moore has just announced the creation of a redistricting commission to consider mid-decade redistricting.
“We will explore every avenue possible to make sure Maryland has fair and representative maps,” Moore said in a statement. But Maryland state Senate president Bill Ferguson, also a Democrat, believes mid-cycle redistricting in Maryland “is the wrong path for our State,” he said on X. He warned of legal barriers to redistricting that could result in ceding “one or two congressional seats to Donald Trump.”
“There’s fighting fire with fire, and then there’s unintentionally burning your own house down in the process,” Ferguson said.
Platform for Newsom’s political future?
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has become one of Mr. Trump’s highest-profile adversaries, was the architect of California’s mid-decade redistricting effort and fought for the Prop 50 initiative. His push for Prop 50 may for a time have been the most public example of resistance by Democrats against Mr. Trump.
Newsom has not ruled out a run for the presidency in 2028, and his success in selling Prop 50 to voters could help launch a campaign, especially if Democrats are able to take the House in 2026. And he indicated to Robert Costa in a late October interview on “CBS Sunday Morning” that he’ll give serious thought to running after the 2026 midterm elections.
Voters in Tuesday’s race were divided on whether Newsom should run for president in 2028, with 45% saying he should and 54% saying he shouldn’t, according to exit polling data.
The results of Prop 50 tracked closely with voters’ views on Newsom’s future: Some 94% of Californians who support a Newsom presidential run voted yes on Prop 50, while 65% of those who don’t want him to run voted no.
Voter turnout across Los Angeles County remains steady as Angelenos weigh Proposition 50, a measure that could reshape California’s congressional maps
As of 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, voting across Los Angeles County remains steady in the statewide special election that includes Proposition 50, a measure that could allow state lawmakers to redraw congressional district maps ahead of the next census.
According to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, turnout appears to be tracking higher than in most recent special elections, with consistent voter activity reported at vote centers in several regions of the county. Officials have not yet released a formal turnout percentage but indicated that both in-person and early mail-in participation are trending upward compared to similar off-cycle contests.
Vote centers across Los Angeles have reported smooth operations throughout the day. Minor delays were noted at a handful of high-traffic locations earlier in the morning, but election workers have since confirmed that all sites remain open and fully staffed. Ballot drop boxes remain available throughout the county until polls close.
Proposition 50 stands out as the centerpiece of today’s statewide special election in California because it proposes a major shift in how congressional district maps are drawn. The measure was put on the ballot by the California Legislature, was signed off on by the governor, and is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that voters now get to approve or reject.
Under the current system, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (an independent body created in 2010) draws the boundaries for U.S. House districts every ten years following the census. Proposition 50 asks voters whether to authorize temporary new maps for congressional districts in California, maps that were drawn by the legislature, not the current independent commission. These maps would apply to the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections.
If approved, the existing maps drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission would be bypassed until after the 2030 census, at which point the Commission would again draw the maps for the subsequent decade.
The stakes are significant across the state and here in Los Angeles. A “yes” vote would mean the new legislatively-drawn maps become operative, potentially altering the partisan composition of several districts. Meanwhile, a “no” vote would preserve the existing maps drawn by the independent commission through at least the next post-census redrawing.
Scroll to continue reading
The ballot summary explicitly explains that the measure was framed “in response to Texas’ mid-decade partisan congressional redistricting” to allow California’s legislature to adopt new congressional maps ahead of the next census.
Supporters say the change would help California keep pace with other states that have already reshaped their maps, ensuring fairer national representation. Opponents argue it would undo the voter-approved system designed to keep politics out of redistricting and could open the door to partisan map-drawing.
Alongside Proposition 50, voters in Los Angeles are casting ballots in local races — city council seats, school board contests and other municipal offices — which traditionally draw lower turnout in special elections. Because Proposition 50 has elevated the visibility of the entire election, turnout for these down-ballot contests may receive a boost. The combination of a high-profile statewide measure and local races gives today’s election a mix of broad structural issues and neighborhood-level stakes.
Los Angeles County election officials will release periodic updates throughout the evening as counting continues.
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore is pressing forward with an effort to redraw the state’s congressional districts, despite opposition from a key legislative leader.
Maryland’s Democratic governor is pressing forward with an effort to redraw the state’s congressional districts, despite opposition from a key legislative leader of his own party.
Gov. Wes Moore (D), in a statement released to Maryland Matters, announced the formation of a five-member Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Commission, to be led by U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.). It is the latest move to redraw Maryland’s eight congressional districts with an eye toward eliminating the last Republican district.
“My commitment has been clear from Day One — we will explore every avenue possible to make sure Maryland has fair and representative maps,” Moore said in the statement. “This commission will ensure the people are heard. I thank those who have raised their hands to lead this process, and I am confident in their ability to gather the views and perspectives of a broad range of voices throughout the state.”
Moore said the commission is charged with making recommendations to the governor and General Assembly on improving how the state’s eight congressional districts are drawn and ensuring “fair” congressional maps.
Those claims aside, the effort is part of a national battle for control of the House of Representatives before the 2026 midterm elections.
Maryland, like other states, redraws its congressional district lines every 10 years, following the decennial Census reports on population shifts.
But Texas, at the urging of President Donald Trump (R), redrew its districts earlier this year to make the map more friendly to GOP candidates next year. Other red states followed with mid-decade redistricting, and Democratic leaders in blue states have responded in kind.
California voters on Tuesday could move toward a map that would add five Democratic seats. Other states — including Maryland — are under pressure to follow suit. House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has been calling Maryland lawmakers to press the issue, along with longtime Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th).
U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D), of Maryland, will chair a redistricting panel appointed Tuesday by Gov. Wes Moore (D). (File photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
Alsobrooks will lead a five-member panel that includes former Attorney General Brian Frosh and Cumberland Mayor Ray Morriss, all appointed by Moore. Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) and House Speaker Adrienne Jones (D-Baltimore County) or their designees would round out the commission.
“We have a president that treats our democracy with utter contempt. We have a Republican Party that is trying to rig the rules in response to their terrible polling,” Alsobrooks said in the statement from Moore’s office. “Let me be clear: Maryland deserves a fair map that represents the will of the people. That’s why I’m proud to chair this commission. Our democracy depends on all of us standing up in this moment.”
Currently, seven of Maryland’s eight congressional districts are held by Democrats. As recently as two decades ago, those eight seats were split evenly among the two parties in a state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 2-1.
Moore said last week that he continues to consider calling a special legislative session to take up the issue of redistricting ahead of the 2026 General Assembly session, but Tuesday’s announcement makes no mention of a special session.
Such a session would come despite opposition in the Senate to any mid-decade redistricting plan.
The announcement Tuesday is the latest in a political standoff over redistricting between Moore, a rising star in national Democratic politics, and Ferguson, who said last week he opposes mid-cycle redistricting, and warned it could backfire on Democrats.
“Simply put, it is too risky and jeopardizes Maryland’s ability to fight against the radical Trump Administration. At a time where every seat in Congress matters, the potential for ceding yet another one to Republicans here in Maryland is simply too great,” he wrote in a confidential letter sent to his 34-member Democratic Caucus.
The legislature approved the current congressional map in 2022. The next one would normally be approved in 2032, after the 2030 Census.
The governor’s announcement highlighted a division within his own party. While Ferguson is opposed, Jones, the House leader, appears ready to join Moore.
Moore said his commission follows a model used by Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley in 2011. The panel, which is expected to meet this month, will solicit public feedback on the state’s current congressional maps and make recommendations, which could lead to legislation and a special session.
But where O’Malley’s committee held a dozen meetings over three months, Moore’s panel simply does not have that kind of time.
Maryland Senate President Sen. Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City). (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
There are roughly 10 weeks until the Jan. 14 start of the 2026 legislative session. Besides the looming holidays, many lawmakers are expected to take part in panels at the Maryland Association of Counties winter conference from Dec. 10-12, which previews issues in the upcoming legislative session.
A special session, if there is one, could fall around the first week of December, after lawmakers return from Thanksgiving and before the end of the year holiday lull.
Redistricting could have the potential to upend the state elections process.
Currently, the filing deadline for candidates is Feb. 24. New congressional maps would have to be approved in time to allow candidates to file in the appropriate districts. Map changes might require lawmakers to push back the primary election scheduled for June 23.
Federal law requiring ballots be mailed to overseas voters 45 days before the election will limit how late a primary can be held. And Maryland’s Nov. 3 general election cannot be changed. Those ballots will be mailed Sept. 19. Prior to that mailing, ballots must be certified and printed.
That sets up a scenario where the latest a primary election could be held is late July or early August — peak vacation season.
Further complicating matters are the almost inevitable state and federal court challenges that could delay implementation of the new districts.
And the possibility of a referendum challenge could also delay the maps. If lawmakers opt to pass new maps using emergency legislation, a referendum challenge would not become effective until after the primary.
And while the probability of a successful referendum challenge is low, consequences could be severe should opponents succeed against an emergency bill. A successful challenge would likely invalidate the map under the challenged law and could leave Maryland without congressional representation, pending new maps and a special primary and general election.
The Democratic-led Virginia General Assembly has approved advancing a proposed constitutional amendment that could pave the way for redistricting in the state ahead of congressional midterm elections.
An Ohio panel adopted new U.S. House districts on Friday that could boost the GOP’s chances of winning two additional seats in next year’s elections and aid President Donald Trump’s efforts to hold on to a slim congressional majority.
The action by the Ohio Redistricting Commission came as Virginia’s Democratic-led General Assembly advanced a proposed constitutional amendment that could pave the way for redistricting in the state ahead of the 2026 congressional elections. That measure needs another round of legislative approval early next year before it can go to voters.
Trump has been urging Republican-led states to reshape their U.S. House districts in an attempt to win more seats. But unlike in other states, Ohio’s redistricting was required by the state constitution because the current districts were adopted after the 2020 census without bipartisan support.
Ohio joins Texas, Missouri and North Carolina, where Republican lawmakers already have revised congressional districts.
Democrats have been pushing back. California voters are deciding Tuesday on a redistricting plan passed by the Democratic-led Legislature.
The political parties are in an intense battle, because Democrats need to gain just three seats in next year’s election to win control of the House and gain the power to impede Trump’s agenda.
In a rare bit of bipartisanship, Ohio’s new map won support from all five Republicans and both Democrats on the redistricting panel. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee praised the Ohio Democrats “for negotiating to prevent an even more egregious gerrymander” benefiting Republicans.
Republicans hold 10 of Ohio’s 15 congressional seats. The new map could boost their chances in already competitive districts currently held by Democratic Reps. Greg Landsman in Cincinnati and Marcy Kaptur near Toledo. Kaptur won a 22nd term last year by about 2,400 votes, or less than 1 percentage point, in a district carried by Trump. Landsman won reelection with more than 54% of the vote.
National Democrats said they expect to hold both targeted districts and compete to flip three other Republican seats.
Ohio residents criticize new map
Ohio’s commission had faced a Friday deadline to adopt a new map, or the task would have fallen to the GOP-led Legislature, which could have crafted districts even more favorable to Republicans. Any redistricting bill passed by the Legislature could have been subject to an initiative petition campaign from opponents forcing a public referendum on the new map.
That uncertainty provided commissioners of both parties with some incentive for compromise. House Minority Leader Dani Isaacsohn, a Democratic commissioner, said the deal “averts the disaster that was coming our way” with a potential 13-2 map favoring Republicans. And Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, another commissioner, said it avoided a costly battle over a referendum that could have delayed the state’s primaries.
But Ohio residents who testified to commissioners Friday denounced the new districts. Julia Cattaneo, whose shirt proclaimed, “gerrymandering is cheating,” said the new map is gerrymandered for Republicans more than the one it is replacing and is not the sort of compromise needed.
“Yes, you are compromising — your integrity, honor, duty and to represent Ohioans,” she said.
Added resident Scott Sibley: “This map is an affront to democracy, and you should all — every one of you — be ashamed.”
Republican Auditor Keith Farber, a commission member, defended the map during a testy exchange with one opponent. Because many Democrats live in cities and many Republicans in rural areas, he said there was no way to draw eight Republican and seven Democratic districts — as some had urged — without splitting cities, counties and townships.
Virginia Democrats point at Trump to defend redistricting
Virginia is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans. Democratic lawmakers haven’t unveiled their planned new map, nor how many seats they will try to gain, but said their moves are necessary to respond to the Trump-inspired gerrymandering in Republican-led states.
“Our voters are asking to have that voice. They’re asking that we protect democracy, that we not allow gerrymandering to happen throughout the country, and we sit back,” Democratic Sen. Barbara Favola said.
The proposed constitutional amendment would let lawmakers temporarily bypass a bipartisan commission and redraw congressional districts to their advantage. The Senate’s approval Friday followed House approval Wednesday.
The developments come as Virginia holds elections Tuesday, where all 100 state House seats are on the ballot. Democrats would need to keep their slim majority to advance the constitutional amendment again next year. It then would go to a statewide referendum.
Republican Sen. Mark Obenshain said Democrats were ignoring the will of voters who overwhelmingly approved the bipartisan redistricting commission.
“Heaven forbid that we actually link arms and work together on something,” Obenshain said. “What the voters of Virginia said is, ‘We expect redistricting to be an issue that we work across the aisle on, that we link arms on.’”
But Democratic Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, who has long championed the bipartisan redistricting commission, noted it still would be responsible for redistricting after the 2030 census.
“We’re not trying to end the practice of fair maps,” he said. “We are asking the voters if, in this one limited case, they want to ensure that a constitutional-norm-busting president can’t break the entire national election by twisting the arms of a few state legislatures.”
Indiana and Kansas could be next
Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Braun called a special session to begin Monday to redraw congressional districts, currently held by seven Republicans and two Democrats. But lawmakers don’t plan to begin work on that day. Although it’s unclear exactly when lawmakers will convene, state law allows 40 days to complete a special session.
In Kansas, Republican lawmakers are trying to collect enough signatures from colleagues to call themselves into a special session on congressional redistricting beginning Nov. 7. Senate President Ty Masterson says he has the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate, but House Republicans have at least a few holdouts. The petition is necessary because Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly isn’t likely to call a session to redraw the current districts, held by three Republicans and one Democrat.
___
Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri; Scolforo from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Diaz from Richmond, Virginia. John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan, contributed.
A Republican-dominated Ohio panel adopted new U.S. House districts on Friday that could boost the GOP’s chances of winning two additional seats in next year’s elections and aid President Donald Trump’s efforts to hold on to a slim congressional majority.
The action by the Ohio Redistricting Commission came as Virginia’s Democratic-led Virginia General Assembly advanced a proposed constitutional amendment that could pave the way for redistricting in the state ahead of congressional midterm elections next year. The Senate on Friday passed a resolution that would allow lawmakers to temporarily bypass a bipartisan redistricting commission and gerrymander their maps. The House had advanced it Wednesday.
Trump has been urging Republican-led states to reshape their U.S. House districts in an attempt to win more seats. But unlike in other states, Ohio’s redistricting was required by the state constitution because the current districts were adopted after the 2020 census without bipartisan support.
Ohio joins Texas, Missouri and North Carolina, where Republican lawmakers already have revised their congressional districts.
Democrats have been pushing back. California voters are deciding Tuesday on a redistricting plan passed by the Democratic-led Legislature.
The political parties are in an intense battle, because Democrats need to gain just three seats in next year’s election to win control of the House and gain the power to impede Trump’s agenda.
In Ohio, Republicans already hold 10 of 15 congressional seats. The new map could boost Republican chances in already competitive districts currently held by Democratic Reps. Greg Landsman in Cincinnati and Marcy Kaptur near Toledo. Kaptur won a 22nd term last year by about 2,400 votes, or less than 1 percentage point, in a district carried by Trump. Landsman was reelected with more than 54% of the vote.
Ohio’s commission had faced a Friday deadline to adopt a new map, or else the task would have fallen to the GOP-led Legislature, which could have crafted districts even more favorable to Republicans. But any redistricting bill passed by the Legislature could have been subject to an initiative petition campaign from opponents seeking to force a public referendum on the new map.
The uncertainty of that legislative process provided commissioners of both parties with some incentive for compromise. All seven commissioners — five Republicans and two Democrats — voted for the new map.
But Ohio residents who testified to commissioners Friday denounced the new districts. Julia Cattaneo, who wore a shirt saying “gerrymandering is cheating,” said the new map is gerrymandered more for Republicans than the one it is replacing and is not the sort of compromise needed.
“Yes, you are compromising — your integrity, honor, duty and to represent Ohioans,” she said.
Added resident Scott Sibley: “This map is an affront to democracy, and you should all — every one of you — be ashamed.”
Republican state Auditor Keith Farber, a member of the commission, defended the map during a testy exchange with one opponent. Because many Democrats live in cities and many Republicans in rural areas, he said there was no way to draw a map creating eight Republican and seven Democratic districts — as some had urged — without splitting cities, counties and townships.
Virginia is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans. Democratic lawmakers haven’t unveiled their planned new map, nor how many seats they are trying to gain, but said their moves are necessary to respond to the Trump-inspired gerrymandering in Republican-led states.
“Our voters are asking to have that voice. They’re asking that we protect democracy, that we not allow gerrymandering to happen throughout the country, and we sit back,” Democratic Sen. Barbara Favola said.
The proposed constitutional amendment would let lawmakers temporarily bypass a bipartisan commission and redraw congressional districts to their advantage. The measure would still need to pass the General Assembly again next year, then go before voters in a statewide referendum.
The developments come as Virginia holds statewide elections Tuesday, where all 100 seats in the House of Delegates are on the ballot. Democrats would need to keep their slim majority in the lower chamber to advance the constitutional amendment next year.
Republican Sen. Mark Obenshain said Democrats were ignoring the will of voters who had overwhelmingly approved a bipartisan redistricting commission.
“Heaven forbid that we actually link arms and work together on something,” Obenshain said. “What the voters of Virginia said is, ‘We expect redistricting to be an issue that we work across the aisle on, that we link arms on.’”
But Democratic Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, who has long championed the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission, noted the panel still would be in charge of redistricting after the 2030 census.
“We’re not trying to end the practice of fair maps,” he said. “We are asking the voters if, in this one limited case, they want to ensure that a constitutional-norm-busting president can’t break the entire national election by twisting the arms of a few state legislatures.”
___
Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri; Scolforo from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Diaz from Richmond, Virginia. Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
As if low voter turnout wasn’t already a challenge in the November election, some Harris County residents have said they weren’t planning to vote in the race for a new Congressional District 18 representative because they thought they’d been redistricted out of that area.
That’s not the case. The District 18 boundaries are the same as they were in the 2024 election, when former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner won the seat. After Turner’s death in March, the Texas Legislature approved new congressional boundary lines but they haven’t gone into effect yet. A special election to fill Turner’s unexpired term is set for November 4, and early voting is underway.
The new redistricting maps are currently being challenged in federal court and, if upheld, will apply to the March 2026 primary election.
Harris County Clerk Teneshia Hudspeth said voters will receive new registration certificates in early 2026 when the new lines are implemented.
Ken Rodgers, president of the Greater Third Ward Super Neighborhood, said he and his neighbors are clear that they haven’t been drawn into another district, and even if they had, they’d still get to vote for a new member of Congress in the November election. The challenge, Rodgers said, is to get people to go to the polls.
“I’m just encouraging people to vote, period,” he said. “The numbers are still low.”
As of Tuesday, about 112,794 Harris County residents cast ballots at 70 early voting polling places. The unofficial numbers also include returned mail ballots. Harris County has almost 2.7 million registered voters, so the turnout thus represents a dismal 4.23 percent. However, early voting continues through Friday and many people still prefer to cast their ballots on Election Day.
The Congressional District 18 race includes 16 candidates, with former Houston City Council member Amanda Edwards and Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee leading in the polls. Both frontrunners are Democrats. Political experts say a runoff is likely to be held in January 2026, and the District 18 boundaries will stay the same for that too.
Edwards said at a Wednesday press conference she’s encountered scores of voters who have expressed uncertainty about which district they live in and where their votes will count in the upcoming election.
“This whole situation is by design: not having the special election occur in close proximity to the death [of Turner] creates a distance with people in terms of their connection to a November election applying to something that happened in March,” she said. “It’s just a lot of those things that, when you add them up, you create a very confused electorate.”
Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott could have called the special election immediately but said after Turner’s death that Harris County has poorly managed elections in the past and would need months, not weeks, to prepare.
Bishops R.H. Jones, Kenneth Murray Sr. and John Wynn attended Edwards’ media event and said they’re working in the community to educate voters that there is a November election and the redistricting boundaries haven’t changed.
“They don’t even know they’re confused,” Wynn said. “Logically, [approved redistricting maps] would apply to the next election.”
Bishops R.H. Jones, Kenneth R. Murray Sr. and John Wynn say they’re educating voters that there is a November election and the redistricting boundaries haven’t changed yet. Credit: April Towery
Currently, the 18th Congressional district has about 800,000 constituents and includes downtown, part of The Heights, Acres Homes, Third Ward, northeast Houston and the area surrounding George Bush Intercontinental Airport and Humble.
The new proposed boundaries move the district’s core population south and east, taking in portions of the 9th Congressional District, represented by Democrat Congressman Al Green, whose home will be in the 18th district under the new map.
Green didn’t file for the special election to fill Turner’s unexpired term but has said he’s considering a run for District 18 in the March primary.
The lines were redrawn mid-decade in an effort to flip five seats red so President Donald Trump could maintain his Republican majority in Congress. District 18 is now and will remain a Democrat-majority district. Critics have said the effort, led by the Republican-majority Texas Legislature, was unnecessary and racist.
The new District 18 boundaries will decrease the Hispanic population, which plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit say dilutes the voting power of minority communities.
Christian Menefee, third from right, poses with supporters Houston City Councilman Mario Castillo, Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis, U.S. Congresswoman Rodney Ellis, Houston City Councilwoman Tiffany Thomas and Houston Federation of Teachers president Jackie Anderson at an October 28 event. Credit: Jackie Anderson
Menefee said Wednesday he’s also seeing “a ton of confusion.”
“This election is about our democracy,” Menefee said in an email to the Houston Press. “This district is known for having a powerful voice, and right now that voice matters more than ever. Republican leaders are doing everything they can to dilute the voting power of the people, from changing maps to making it more confusing to vote, all in an effort to silence our communities.”
“But every single vote cast in this election pushes back against that,” he added. “Every single vote says we’re still here, we’re still fighting, and we’re ready to stand up for democracy.”
Edwards ran for the District 18 seat in 2024 and placed second to longtime U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in the primary. After Jackson Lee’s death in July 2024, Edwards made another bid and lost to Turner in a special election.
“It has been far too long since we’ve had representation,” Edwards said on Wednesday. By the time a representative is elected, almost a year will have passed since District 18 residents have had an opportunity to advocate for federal funding and had a voice in Congress, the candidate said.
“A lot has taken place, including the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill that has devastating impacts on our community,” she said. “That only passed, initially, by a margin of one vote while the seat was empty.”
Edwards’ message on Wednesday was clear: “If you were able to vote in the 18th Congressional District in 2022 and 2024, you can vote in that district in 2025 in this special election.” Because the election is to fill Turner’s unexpired term, the boundaries that were in place when that term began must be honored, the candidate explained. The winner of the special election will serve until December 2026.
All Texas voters will decide on 17 constitutional amendments, including tax exemptions, a statewide water fund and bail reform. Houston and Cypress-Fairbanks ISDs have contested school board races, and an at-large Houston City Council seat is also up for grabs for voters who live within the city limits.
The Trump administration is sending election monitors to New Jersey and California, two states where voters are casting ballots in politically contentious elections.
The Justice Department will send monitors to Passaic County, New Jersey, and five California counties “to ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law” following Republicans’ requests in bothstates.
The move raised some Trump administration critics’ ire.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said state officials will monitor the monitors. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the Trump administration has “no business” sending monitors for a state election and called the actions “voter intimidation” and “voter suppression.”
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dillon told Newsom on X to “calm down.”
“The Justice Department under Democrat administrations has sent in federal election observers for decades,” Dillon’s post said.
Election experts said monitors are a longstanding and legal federal practice. The Biden,Obama and Trump administrations sent election monitors in state or local elections.
“They’re just there to look,” said Justin Levitt, Loyola Law School professor who worked in the Biden administration. “To observe. That’s literally it.”
Californians are voting on Proposition 50, which will determine the state’s congressional map. In the New Jersey gubernatorial race, Democratic U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill faces Republican former state legislator Jack Ciattarelli.
The Justice Department mentioned no plans for monitors in other Nov. 4 elections in Virginia or New York City, where voters are casting ballots for governor and mayor, respectively.
The department did not say how many monitors it will deploy in California and New Jersey.
Federal monitors have visited election sites for decades
Federal monitors have visited polling places since the Voting Rights Act’s 1965 passage.
The Justice Department decides where to send the monitors. The designees observe and take notes — in case the department pursues further action — and prevent federal law violations.
Monitors work in the department’s Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorneys’ offices. They are not law enforcement officers, and they don’t have access to ballots or voting machines. Monitors generally are experienced Justice Department attorneys, and it’s unlikely voters would notice them, said David Becker, executive director of The Center for Election Innovation & Research.
They monitor compliance with several voting laws, including those that prevent voter suppression based on race.
Republican Jack Ciattarelli, left, and Democrat Mikie Sherrill participate in the final debate in the New Jersey governor’s race, Oct. 8, 2025, in New Brunswick, N.J. (AP)
Will monitors go inside voting sites?
A Passaic County spokesperson said monitors will be only outside of polling locations.
Ezra Rosenberg, director of appellate advocacy for the ACLU of New Jersey, said monitors typically remain outside polling places, but go inside if ordered by the court or invited by election officials. He called it unusual for the Justice Department to say it will monitor “ballot security” because typically the department monitors for Voting Rights Act compliance.
Bob Page, the Orange County, California, registrar of voters, told PolitiFact that Justice Department lawyers are allowed the same access as the public to observe at vote centers and at ballot processing.
“It is common for us to have local, state, federal, and sometimes international observers, watching how we administer elections that are accessible, accurate, fair, secure, and transparent,” Page said.
Officials in Fresno and Riverside counties in California provided similar statements about monitors’ access.
Why did Republicans request the election monitors?
New Jersey Republicans asked for monitors after the county board of elections blocked a Republican request to install video surveillance for stored ballots.
In California, the state GOP said there have been irregularities in recent elections. We contacted the party to ask for details and received no reply.
Groups such as the ACLU and the League of Women Voters in New Jersey maintain hotlines voters can call if they encounter problems. Groups monitoring voting rights encouraged eligible voters to cast their ballots as normal.
“Voters can have full confidence in New Jersey elections and know that they have the right to vote without intimidation or interference,” said Jesse Burns, League of Women Voters of New Jersey executive director. “Department of Justice election monitoring is not unusual and they cannot interfere with a voter’s ability to cast a ballot.”
As Virginia’s high-stakes election nears, Democrats have called a special legislative session to propose redrawing U.S. House districts — prompting Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin to denounce the move as a “desperate grab for power.” The redistricting effort, inspired by similar GOP actions in states like Texas, aims to bolster Democratic chances in the 2026 midterms, reigniting partisan tensions over electoral fairness and constitutional authority.
WTOP’s Alan Etter breaks down the Virginia General Assembly’s special session on Monday to potentially redraw the state’s congressional boundaries.
This article was reprinted with permission from Virginia Mercury.
With just one week before Election Day, Virginia lawmakers returned to the state Capitol Monday for a surprise special session that swiftly turned into a partisan clash over the future of the state’s congressional map — and, potentially, its balance of political power for years to come.
House Democrats, using procedural maneuvers that caught Republicans off guard, pushed through a procedural resolution crafted by House Majority Leader Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria, which, if successful, would allow the General Assembly to consider a proposed constitutional amendment granting lawmakers authority to redraw Virginia’s congressional districts mid-decade.
Under the resolution, adopted on a party-line vote in both chambers, lawmakers may now consider budget and revenue bills, judicial appointments and constitutional amendments related to redistricting and reapportionment. The measure effectively removes the usual constraints that limit special sessions to subjects designated by the governor or legislative leaders.
“This was an important vote for us to take this week in order for us to have that option,” said Del. Cia Price, D-Newport News, chair of the House Privileges and Elections Committee. “If we were not to take this action right now, then we would be pulling an option from the voters.”
Republicans decried the legislative action as an ambush carried out largely behind closed doors. Democrats argued the procedural expansion is needed to respond to what they view as a growing national campaign by Republicans — encouraged by President Donald Trump — to reengineer congressional maps mid-decade.
As first reported by The New York Times last week, Democratic strategists, including former Attorney General Eric Holder, have urged Virginia to act preemptively in case federal courts uphold new Republican-drawn maps in states such as Texas, North Carolina and Missouri that could tilt the balance of the U.S. House.
“The actions that Texas and Missouri and North Carolina have taken have triggered this,” Price said. “The trigger has already been pulled when it comes to attacks on our democracy. So that’s why Virginia is here. We are going to do our job to protect democracy in Virginia.”
Republicans cry foul
Republicans blasted the maneuver as a constitutional overreach designed to change election rules days before voters decide three statewide races.
House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, said Democrats had sidelined the minority and the public in an opaque process that left many guessing what was actually being planned.
“There’s a lot of issues that we need to talk about to the voters of Virginia, but obviously the ruling party had other plans,” Kilgore told reporters on the House floor. “Just let it be known that we do think that this was a plan to take us out of having any motions of personal privilege. … I just want to know from our side, because we’re not privy to all this, are we going to have a redistricting constitutional amendment coming to the floor?”
House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, speaks with reporters on the House floor Monday. (Photo by Markus Schmidt/Virginia Mercury)
Del. Israel O’Quinn, R-Washington, accused Democrats of hiding the ball: “You know a bill is a bad idea when a member mumbles through their description of it and refuses to take questions and sits back down,” O’Quinn said. “They don’t want morning hour speeches, so you’re getting to see a really bad idea play out in real time.”
Republicans also questioned whether Democrats had already missed the legal window to advance a constitutional amendment this year.
Del. Bobby Orrock, R-Spotsylvania, cited Virginia Code § 30-13, which requires proposed constitutional amendments to be posted publicly at least three months before the next House of Delegates election.
“That deadline has already passed,” Orrock said on the House floor, arguing that any amendment passed this week could not legally appear before voters in November.
Del. Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, warned that Democrats were defying centuries of precedent.
“Here we are, eight days before Election Day, near the conclusion of our 46-day election season, in Richmond,” Ware said. “The purpose of this unprecedented special session during an election is to hitch Virginia, belatedly, to the pell-mell bandwagon, to redistrict, or to speak more honestly, to gerrymander, the commonwealth’s electoral districts.”
Democrats: Amendment only creates an “option”
Price and other Democrats maintained that the move does not dismantle Virginia’s independent redistricting commission, approved by voters in 2020, but merely creates an additional safeguard should courts or federal actions reshape national political boundaries.
Del. Rodney Willett, D-Henrico, who will carry the proposed constitutional amendment, said the plan “is going to give us options.”
“Maybe the most important point to make here is what the resolution is not going to do, which is to abolish the commission that was created through the earlier constitutional amendment,” Willett said.
“This is to create, again, not a mandate, but an option, in the interim, in between those decennial redistrictings to do something when there’s an extraordinary circumstance.”
He added that the move was necessary because “our hand’s been forced here. This is not our choice to be here, but with this kind of attack, we’ve got to respond.”
Democratic House Speaker Don Scott, D-Portsmouth, who last week called lawmakers back to Richmond, declined to outline his full plan publicly. But some Democratic leaders told Virginia Scope last week that the goal is to prevent Virginia’s representation in Congress from being weakened if neighboring states redraw their maps to favor Republicans.
Earle-Sears, GOP candidates seize on the optics
Before the session opened, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears — who presided over the state Senate Monday and is also the Republican nominee for governor — staged a campaign-style news conference on the Capitol steps, accusing Democrats of abusing their majority for partisan gain.
“Today, Democrats in our General Assembly are calling this special session, not to serve the people, but to serve ourselves,” Earle-Sears said. “They want to dismantle the very independent redistricting commission that Virginia was voting for in a bipartisan majority.”
Earle-Sears called the commission “born out of a prayer, a rare moment of unity, when Democrats and Republicans alike agreed that voters … should choose their own representatives, and not the other way around.”
Virginia Republican gubernatorial nominee Winsome Earle-Sears speaks at the state capitol Monday to rally against a special session called by Democratic leadership in the legislature to consider redistricting just over a week before Election Day. (Photo by Charlotte Rene Woods/Virginia Mercury)
She linked the move directly to her Democratic opponent, Abigail Spanberger, saying, “This pressure is coming from Washington insiders and Abigail Spanberger. What we are seeing today is the worst kind of political backtracking, an attempt to grab power by erasing the voter’s voice.”
Her remarks came as national attention turned to a $150,000 donation each from Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee to Spanberger’s campaign and to Virginia House Democrats.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin seized on that timing Monday, accusing Spanberger of hypocrisy.
“This was Abigail Spanberger’s position just a few short years ago,” Youngkin wrote on X, citing her 2019 praise of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down racially gerrymandered districts. “All it took was $150,000 from the ‘Democrat Redistricting Committee’ to change her position completely,” Youngkin wrote.
Spanberger has not commented publicly on the current effort. In an August interview with WJLA, she said she opposed mid-decade redistricting and warned against “politicians trying to tilt the playing field in their favor,” aligning herself with Maryland Gov. Wes Moore’s call for fair-maps legislation.
Republican lieutenant governor nominee John Reid on Monday echoed Earle-Sears’ criticism, saying Democrats were “not respecting the will of the people.”
“They made it very clear, just five years ago, they don’t want petty partisanship,” Reid said. “They don’t want politicians drawing their own lines … this is not respectful to the people in Virginia.”
GOP congressional delegation joins chorus
Earlier in the day, Virginia’s five Republican members of Congress — U.S. Reps. Morgan Griffith, Jen Kiggans, Rob Wittman, Ben Cline and John McGuire — held a joint news conference at the Capitol condemning the Democratic move.
Griffith, a former House majority leader in the state legislature, said he had firsthand experience with partisan line-drawing.
“I was a part of partisan redistricting, but the voters of Virginia spoke in 2020 that they didn’t like that happening,” he said. Griffith argued that a special session after early voting had already begun “deprives those who have voted early” of the chance to weigh the issue.
U.S. Rep. Jen Kiggans (left) and U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith (right) join their fellow Republican members of Virginia’s congressional delegation at the state capitol. (Photo by Charlotte Rene Woods/ Virginia Mercury)
Kiggans, who represents a competitive swing district in Hampton Roads, called the proposal a cynical replay of Washington dysfunction. “It’s a competitive district, and always will be,” she said, likening the Democratic plan to “partisan games in Washington” that have “now trickled down here to Richmond.”
Legal doubts and political fallout
Republican Party of Virginia Chair Mark Peake, a state senator from Lynchburg, told The Mercury in an interview Monday that the Democratic proposal was “unconstitutional.”
“There is no intervening election,” Peake said. “Nine-hundred thousand people have already voted. They’re supposed to post it in courthouses for three months before the election. They don’t have a bill, they don’t have a constitutional amendment. It’s not going through. As I said, it’s a ruse.”
Peake predicted “this will 100 percent end up in court.”
He dismissed comparisons to Trump’s mid-decade redistricting push in Texas.
“Where we are different is, we have a constitutional amendment in place that says how we do redistricting. Not mid-decade, it’s every decade. And it’s bipartisan.”
Broader stakes: A national redistricting arms race
The New York Times reported last week that Virginia Democrats’ rush to act stems from a fear that Republican-controlled states could redraw congressional boundaries before 2026, potentially costing Democrats several seats.
Trump’s public calls for GOP legislatures to redistrict mid-decade have prompted a flurry of legal and legislative action in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina. The U.S. Supreme Court is also currently weighing a major redistricting case from Louisiana.
In that context, Democrats in Virginia — one of only a few southern states with divided political control in recent years — see a constitutional amendment as both a defensive measure and a statement of principle.
But even some Democrats privately concede that the optics of returning to Richmond just days before an election could prove risky, particularly as Republicans work to cast the move as proof of overreach.
Next steps and uncertain path ahead
Price, whose committee oversees election law, said the Privileges and Elections Committee would meet Wednesday morning to review the amendment text, followed by a potential vote in the full House later this week.
She emphasized that the amendment would require approval again in the next legislative session and voter ratification in a statewide referendum before taking effect.
“I’ve been here for 10 years,” Price said. “We’ve had several proposed constitutional amendments, and when the Republicans were in charge, they weren’t worried about what they were bringing up. We are fully within our right to be here.”
Still, the legal and political obstacles are formidable.
Virginia law requires constitutional amendments to be approved by two separately elected General Assemblies, meaning even if Democrats pass it this week, it would need to survive another vote after the new legislature convenes in January — and then win approval at the ballot box in 2026.
Republicans appear determined to challenge the process in court before it gets that far. “They’re wasting our time,” Peake, the RPV chair, said flatly. “It’s going to be overturned as soon as it gets to court.”
As night fell on the Capitol, lawmakers filtered out of the chamber with few clear answers and even fewer signs of bipartisan consensus.
Price, standing outside the chamber doors, said Democrats would proceed carefully but deliberately.
“It’s important that we have all of our options on the table,” she said again. “This is about protecting democracy in Virginia.”
Reporters Nathaniel Cline and Charlotte Rene Woods contributed to this story.
Representative Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican from New York, speaks to members of the media outside the Capitol on Friday, June 27, 2025. Photo: Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images
New York’s congressional map is facing another legal challenge.
On Monday, a group of Staten Island voters filed a lawsuit alleging that the 11th Congressional District, which contains the entire borough and parts of Brooklyn, dilutes the voting power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.
The filing alleges that the district in its current form doesn’t meaningfully account for the decadeslong growth of Staten Island’s Black and Latino populations and the decline of the borough’s white population.
“CD-11’s antiquated boundaries instead confine Staten Island’s growing Black and Latino communities in a district where they are routinely and systematically unable to influence elections for their representative of choice, despite the existence of strong racially polarized voting and a history of racial discrimination and segregation on Staten Island,” the filing reads.
The lawsuit calls for the current congressional map to be declared in violation of state law and for the district to be redrawn so that Staten Island is “paired with voters in lower Manhattan to create a minority influence district in CD-11 that complies with traditional redistricting criteria.”
The plaintiffs are being represented by the Elias Law Group, a Democratic law firm that has undertaken numerous redistricting cases across the country, and the matter was filed in Manhattan Supreme Court.
The 11th Congressional District is currently represented by Nicole Malliotakis, the lone Republican member of Congress in New York City. Ed Cox, the New York Republican Party chairman, called the lawsuit “frivolous” in a statement. “Everyone should see this effort for what it is: a naked attempt to disenfranchise voters in NY-11 and elect a Democrat to this congressional district contrary to the will of voters,” he said.
It’s unclear how successful this legal challenge will ultimately be. Currently, New York delegates the responsibility of drawing district lines to an independent redistricting commission, the result of a voter-backed amendment to the state constitution. That panel fell into controversy in 2022 after its bipartisan members failed to come to an agreement on a pair of maps, prompting a controversial intervention from the state legislature, which drew new lines that were quickly subject to lawsuits. That dispute devolved into a much larger saga that resulted in the courts appointing a special master to draw its own lines.
But Representative Dan Goldman, whose neighboring district contains parts of lower Manhattan, signaled that he would challenge Malliotakis if his district is ultimately redrawn to include Staten Island. “NY-10 is my home, and I will be running for Congress in my home district. If Staten Island is drawn into my district, then I will be ready to step up and take the fight for democracy and a Democratic House majority to Nicole Malliotakis’s doorstep. Nothing can stand in the way of us defeating Donald Trump and his spineless lackeys in Congress. Flipping the House isn’t optional — our future depends on it,” he said in a statement.
President Trump urged California voters on Sunday not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early in the California election about redistricting — the direct opposite of the message from state GOP leaders.
Repeating his false claim that former President Biden beat him in 2020 because the election was rigged, Trump argued that the November special election about redistricting in California would be rigged, as would the 2026 midterm election to determine control of Congress.
“No mail-in or ‘Early’ Voting, Yes to Voter ID! Watch how totally dishonest the California Prop Vote is! Millions of Ballots being ‘shipped,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “GET SMART REPUBLICANS, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!”
Proposition 50, a ballot measure proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts to boost their party’s ranks in the U.S. House of Representatives, is on the Nov. 4 ballot.
The rare mid-decade redistricting effort was in response to Trump urging GOP-led states, initially Texas, to increase the number of Republicans in the House in the 2026 midterm election to allow him to continue implementing his agenda in his final two years in the White House.
Trump has not weighed in on the merits of Proposition 50, while prominent Democrats who support it have, including former President Obama.
More than 4 million mail-in ballots — 18% of the ballots sent to California’s 23 million voters — had been returned as of Friday, according to a vote tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed maps on the ballot. Democrats continue to outpace Republicans in returning ballots, 51% to 28%. Voters registered without a party preference or with other political parties have returned 21% of the ballots.
Early-voting centers also opened in 29 counties on Saturday.
Turnout figures were alarming Republicans leaders before Trump’s message.
“It’s simple. Republicans need to stop complaining and vote. We ask and ask and ask and yet turnout still lags,” the San Diego GOP posted on X. “To win this one GOP turnout needs to be materially better than average. It’s very doable but won’t just happen. Work it.”
Republicans historically voted early while Democrats were more likely to cast ballots on election day. Trump upended this dynamic, creating dissonance with GOP leaders across the nation who recognized the value of banking early votes. And it completely contradicts the messaging by the opponents of Proposition 50.
Jessica Millan Patterson, a former chair of the state GOP and leader of the “No on Prop. 50 — Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab” committee, has been a longtime proponent of urging Republican voters to cast ballots as early and conveniently as possible.
“Sacramento politicians rushed this costly election for partisan gain, and mistakes have been made,” she said Sunday evening. “If Californians want change from our state’s failed one-party rule, it starts by turning out to vote no on Proposition 50.”
In an exclusive interview with Robert Costa for “CBS Sunday Morning,” California Governor Gavin Newsom described the Democrats’ redistricting in his state as an effort to ensure “the future of this republic” – and a necessary measure to counter President Trump’s push to expand Republican gains in the U.S. House and secure its narrow majority.
The vote on Proposition 50 this November 4 was just one of the issues the Democrat discussed, including his own plans for the 2028 election.
Proposition 50
Newsom has been stumping across his state advocating for redistricting, in response to President Trump’s redistricting push in Republican-controlled states, like Texas.
Rather than gerrymander districts in the state legislature, as Texas did, California is putting a ballot initiative, Proposition 50, before the voters on November 4 in order to allow for redistricting in next year’s midterm election.
If Proposition 50 succeeds next week, Democrats will change the boundaries of U.S. House districts in California, making it easier for their party to win up to five more seats. (The state currently has 43 U.S. House seats held by Democrats, and 9 by Republicans.)
Newsom is framing the effort as something about more than California’s Congressional delegation, but about oversight of the Trump administration. “I think it’s about our democracy,” he said. “It’s about the future of this republic. I think it’s about, you know, what the founding fathers lived and died for, this notion of the rule of law, and not the rule of Don. This rule of popular sovereignty fundamentally, of co-equal branches of government, system of checks and balances.
Newsom believes that if his party takes back control of the House and replaces Republican Speaker Mike Johnson with a Democrat, the Trump presidency will effectively be over. “[Trump’s] presidency de facto ends, if we are successful, we the people are successful, in taking back the House,” he said. “You’ll have rebalanced the system. Co-equal branch of government begins to assert itself. It appears again.”
But he fears what may happen if Democrats do not gain control in the House: “If you have a Speaker Johnson, we may have a third-term of President Trump, I really believe that,” a nod to Mr. Trump’s public musing about seeking a third term despite the U.S. Constitution limiting presidents to two terms in office.
Trump’s military deployments
Newsom has fought Mr. Trump’s deployment of federal agents in California – from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Los Angeles, to the threat of federalized National Guard troops in San Francisco and the Bay Area (which the president later pulled back). In fact, the state has filed 43 lawsuits against the Trump administration since Inauguration Day.
Costa asked, “What’s it’s like being the governor of the state of California, and not knowing, day-to-day, if the federal government’s going to be sending agents or not to your state?”
“It’s a hell of a way to govern,” Newsom replied. “I mean, we’re just governing just profound uncertainty, the sort of tectonic plates that we’re familiar with out here on the West Coast, but on the nature of our politics. I’ve said this – may not be a sort of prudent thing to say about a President of the United States – but I mean, he’s an invasive species.”
“For California?”
“For the country. For the world,” Newsom said. “He’s a wrecking ball. Not just the symbolism and substance of the East Wing; he’s wrecking alliances, truth, trust, tradition, institutions.”
“California cooperates as it relates to criminals,” he said. “We continue to cooperate out of our state penitentiary system hundreds of people every month that we coordinate with ICE to go after the ‘worst of the worst.’ That’s not what this is about, and everybody knows it. You don’t just randomly show up at a car wash and tell me it’s about the ‘worst of the worst.’ You don’t randomly show up at the showrooms or the parking lots of every Home Depot.”
Podcasting as a means to understand Trump supporters
Newsom isn’t just opposing Mr. Trump; he’s also trying to understand the MAGA movement. His podcast, “This Is Gavin Newsom,” not only welcomes figures on his side of the political aisle, but also the president’s allies, from Steve Bannon and Newt Gingrich to the late Charlie Kirk.
Newsom said his own son has reminded him about paying attention to other voices. “We’ve got a crisis in this country besides the crisis that we’ve discussed around the future of this republic,” he said. “We also have a crisis with masculinity and men. Men are struggling. … I mean, suicide rates are off the chart, dropout rates, suspension rates, loneliness, despair, depths of despair. It’s a serious crisis, what’s going on in this country.
“Democrats haven’t focused on that issue. And I’m very proud of the work, substantive work we’re doing in this, but I’ve also been using the podcast to highlight that.”
Mocking Trump on social media
The governor also uses satire to tweak the president, aping Mr. Trump’s prolific use of social media. Newsom’s communications team regularly parodies President Trump’s use of all-caps and AI-generated images, even signing off, “THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. — GCN”
Gavin Newsom’s social media presence mocks that of President Trump.
CBS News
Newsom has said that his social-media posts are driven by both his desire to add a sense of humor to politics, and to challenge President Trump by using Trump-style tactics.
2028 plans
This past July, “Sunday Morning” spent a day following Newsom across South Carolina, a key state in the 2028 presidential race. Newsom worked the crowds, shaking hands and even pulling espresso shots at a coffee bar.
Newsom’s visit sparked interest among those at his events and in political circles that he might be mulling his own White House bid.
“I’m looking forward to who presents themselves in 2028 and who meets that moment. And that’s the question for the American people. They’ll make that determination,” Newsom said in the interview this past week.
Costa asked, “Is it fair to say after the 2026 midterms, you’re going to give it serious thought?”
“Yeah. I’d be lying otherwise. I’d just be lying. And I’m – I can’t do that.”
He said it would be important for a candidate to impart to voters exactly why they are running. “Nietzsche said, ‘If you have a compelling why, you can endure any how.’ And so, I think the biggest challenge for anyone who runs for any office is people see right through you if you don’t have that why. You’re doing it for the wrong reasons.”
“When I saw you slinging shots behind the coffee bar, I thought, ‘This guy might run for president.’” Costa said.
Newsom, who as a child was diagnosed with dyslexia, said, “The idea that a guy who got 960 on his SAT, that still struggles to read scripts, that was always in the back of the classroom – the idea that you even throw that out is, in and of itself, extraordinary,” he laughed. “Who the hell knows?”
Story produced by Ed Forgotson and John Goodwin. Editor: Chad Cardin.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has become one of President Trump’s most high-profile adversaries, told “CBS News Sunday Morning” in an exclusive interview that he will consider whether to run for president after the 2026 midterm elections.
In an interview taped Thursday in San Jose, Newsom was asked whether he would give “serious thought” to a White House bid once next year’s midterm elections are over.
“Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom replied. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not — I can’t do that.”
Newsom, whose term ends in January 2027 and is prevented from running again due to term limits, cautioned that any decision is years away.
“Fate will determine that,” he said, when asked about whether he is moving closer to working out a reason for a national candidacy.
Newsom, 58, has made trips to key battleground states, including a visit this past July to South Carolina, which as of now is slated to host the first Democratic primary in the 2028 presidential election, although that could change.
During that trip, which featured multiple stops and was covered by “CBS News Sunday Morning,” Newsom met with state Democratic leaders and stopped by a coffee shop to rally activists and help employees serve espresso drinks.
“I happen to, and thank God, I’m in the right business,” Newsom said in the interview, when asked about his evident enjoyment in meeting Democrats in South Carolina. “I love people. I actually love people.”
Newsom said talk of him possibly running for president, after facing challenges throughout his life, including dyslexia, is a reminder to him that lives can go in surprising directions.
“I have no idea,” Newsom said of whether he will decide to run. “The idea that a guy who got 960 on his SAT, that still struggles to read scripts, that was always in the back of the classroom, the idea that you would even throw that out is, in and of itself, extraordinary. Who the hell knows? I’m looking forward to who presents themselves in 2028 and who meets that moment. And that’s the question for the American people.”
Newsom said his focus now is on passing Proposition 50, a California ballot measure he has championed that would allow state Democrats to temporarily change the boundaries of U.S. House districts and make them more favorable to the party. Newsom has cast his effort, which will be decided in a special election next week, as a response to Mr. Trump’s push for Republican-controlled states, like Texas, to change their congressional maps so the GOP has a better chance at holding on to its narrow House majority next year.
“I think it’s about our democracy. It’s about the future of this republic. I think it’s about, you know, what the Founding Fathers lived and died for, this notion of the rule of law, and not the rule of Don,” Newsom said.
Tensions have run high ahead of the vote, with both parties seeing redistricting efforts as critical to achieving their goal of winning the U.S. House majority next year. Whichever party holds control of the House has subpoena and oversight powers over the Executive Branch.
“We’ve got hundreds and hundreds, ICE and Border Patrol,” Newsom told Proposition 50 supporters on Thursday at a labor event, referring to federal agents in the state. Newsom predicted their presence might increase ahead of the Nov. 4 special election.
“Don’t think for a second we’re not going to be seeing more of that through Election Day,” Newsom said. “These guys are not screwing around.”
In recent days, the Justice Department said it would send its own monitors to supervise the special election in California and the gubernatorial election in New Jersey. Newsom has denounced the move, calling it a Trump administration move to intimidate Democrats. The goal, according to the Justice Department, is “to ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law.”
While Newsom has long been a fixture in California, his foray into presidential politics generated intense interest last year when he was a fierce defender of President Joe Biden, especially in the wake of Biden’s debate performance against Mr. Trump, which prompted many Democrats to call for Biden to exit the 2024 race.
Newsom, however, never wavered on Biden’s candidacy. In the days before Biden dropped out of the race, Newsom stumped for him nationwide, including in New Hampshire.
Speaking with “CBS News Sunday Morning” there in July 2024, about a week before Biden left the race, Newsom said he was “all in” on Biden.
“No daylight,” Newsom said of his alliance with Biden at the time.
According to sources close to both Newsom and Biden, the two men are close and have stayed in touch since Biden left the White House. Newsom is also friendly with former President Barack Obama, who has offered support for Proposition 50 and joined Newsom and volunteers on a video call last week.
Story produced by Ed Forgotson and John Goodwin. Editor: Chad Cardin.
Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin is furious. Democratic leaders in the General Assembly said they’re bringing lawmakers back to Richmond next week to start the process of redrawing the state’s congressional maps.
Virginia Democrats have called lawmakers back to Richmond for a special session next week, the first step toward potentially redrawing their state’s U.S. House districts.
They’re taking a play out of Texas’ book, which redrew its maps in September, backed by President Donald Trump and his push for more partisan districts in Republican-run states.
Virginia Democrats are hoping it will boost their party’s chances in next year’s midterm elections.
Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, in an interview with WTOP anchor Nick Iannelli, called the move “a desperate grab for power.”
It’s all happening just days before Virginia’s high-stakes election in the race for governor on Nov. 4.
Listen to or read the interview below:
WTOP’s Nick Iannelli speaks with Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who called the state’s Democrats ‘desperate’ for redrawing its congressional maps
The transcript below has been lightly edited for clarity.
Nick Iannelli:
For the average political observer, to hear that this was happening, this was a little bit of a shock. This was stunning to hear. Did you as governor know this was coming, this redistricting effort, or were you just as caught off guard by it as everybody else?
Glenn Youngkin:
No, I didn’t know it was coming, and I think it is a desperate grab for power.
Let’s be real. We’re now 34 days into an election cycle; 34 days into the election with 11 days left. And they’re calling for a special session to talk about redistricting and to push something that, by the way, Virginians settled five years ago when there was a constitutional amendment — approved by Virginians. two-thirds, one-third — to have a bipartisan redistricting committee do this work.
And by the way, now here they’re saying, “We’re going to ignore that. We’re going to override you all and drive a blatantly partisan agenda that is counter to everything that Virginians believe.”
The future of the Commonwealth is either going to be one that we work together and get things done, like we have done, or we cede political control to a party that wants to seize power like this right from the hands of voters that voted five years ago in order to have a bipartisan redistricting commission. And they want to do it 11 days before we finish an election.
This is crazy, and I think Virginians have to see through what this is and get out and vote and put a stop to this.
Nick Iannelli:
You called this a “shameful, reprehensible power grab.” This basically happened in Texas, though, and this was supported by the Trump administration. Would you say that Republicans who do these efforts in other states are also carrying out a “shameful, reprehensible power grab?”
Glenn Youngkin:
Nick, let me correct you directly.
There had not been a constitutional amendment passed in Texas. There has been one passed here — a constitutional amendment put to the voters in 2020. An amendment that said we will have a bipartisan redistricting commission and it will handle these redistricting issues. And it passed two-thirds, one-third in Virginia. We have settled this. This is done.
This is so fundamentally wrong, and it violates every ounce of decency that we’re supposed to have as public servants in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And, again, I think it’s reprehensible.
Nick Iannelli:
Are you and your administration going to do something, or try to do something, to stop this from happening?
Glenn Youngkin:
I believe over the course of the week, next week, it will become increasingly clear why this is unconstitutional.
Listen, right now, we’re just in shock that they would play this crazy, crazy card and pull everyone back, including Winsome Earle-Sears, who is campaigning — and they’re also doing it to get her off the campaign trail because they understand that this race has tightened so much.
People recognize they’ll do anything, anything, to seize control, and this is why this election is so tight. And the fact that they are calling this special session at a time when people should be out campaigning and winning by votes, not by trickery, I think this is a real tell into their moral compass, which is spinning right now.
Nick Iannelli:
Are you going to do anything legally to try to stop this?
Glenn Youngkin:
As you can imagine, everyone is examining all avenues, and we’ll see how that plays out next week.
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
North Carolina is now the latest state to join a mid-decade redistricting gambit that could shake up next year’s midterms, following similar moves by Missouri, Texas and California to redraw their House maps, along with a separate court-ordered effort in Utah.
The redistricting push began with President Trump’s call for Texas Republicans to find more seats. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed legislation in August to redraw the state’s districts and create five GOP-friendly seats, launching the first salvo in a push that has drawn national attention. It led to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s own campaign to redraw the map to help Democrats.
Then, in Missouri, state lawmakers redrew their map earlier this month to edge out Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver from his Kansas City district. Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, signed the legislation on Sunday. In October, North Carolina Republicans targeted a single Democratic district as well, passing a map that redraws the 1st Congressional District to make it lean more heavily Republican.
Utah lawmakers have also reworked their state’s map after a judge ruled the current districts violated restrictions on gerrymandering. All four of the state’s House districts are represented by Republicans.
Challenges remain in all states. The NAACP filed a lawsuit challenging Kehoe’s authority to create the new map outside of a census year, and three other lawsuits have been filed. Civil rights groups are also suing in Texas, claiming the maps are racially biased. And in California, the state’s new map must be approved by voters in a November special election before it takes effect.
Congressional maps are normally redrawn every 10 years after the U.S. Census reveals population shifts. But this rare mid-decade redistricting push was kicked off as Republicans seek to maintain — or even expand — their razor-thin majority in Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. Historically speaking, midterms are often a rebuke of the party in the White House.
Abbott then called a special session of the Legislature with redistricting on the agenda. But two weeks into the 30-day special session, Texas Democrats fled the state to deny a quorum and prevent the legislation from coming to the floor.
The Democrats ultimately returned after two weeks, and the legislation was passed, but they garnered significant national attention. Although California requires congressional maps to be approved by voters, Newsom vowed to redraw the state’s districts to garner up to five seats for Democrats to counter Texas.
Amid this push, other states have also started to discuss redistricting efforts, includingIndiana and Florida, which could net Republicans several more seats.
Although both parties are trying to rig their states’ congressional districts to be favorable to themselves, the outcome is far from guaranteed.
“Computers and technology do give us a lot more ability to to make predictive statements about outcomes, but we’re doing it — I think it’s fair to say — in a very volatile environment politically, where things that we have seen as trends are sort of being turned on their heads,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based the Brennan Center for Justice.
Crayton noted several current issues that could factor heavily into voters’ decisions, and called it “folly to assume that just because people showed up and voted for the current president of the United States, that people want to show up for a member of Congress, particularly … a new candidate in a district that hasn’t been created before.”
See maps of how Texas, California and Missouri’s push could play out, based on the 2024 election results:
Texas has 38 congressional seats, 25 of which are currently held by Republicans. The other 13 are held by Democrats.
Texas Republicans have invested heavily in the Rio Grande Valley, once a Democratic stronghold but Mr. Trump and the GOP have made gains here in the past few years.
In 2024, two of the three Rio Grande Valley House seats voted for Mr. Trump but reelected their Democratic member of Congress. The new maps are trying to add to those gains and box out those two Democrats.
Texas Democrats have recently made gains in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and Houston’s Harris County. The new maps reshape Democratic Rep. Al Green’s Houston district in the rural areas, making a district that was 72% Democratic into one that is 40% Democratic. The proposed map also changes Rep. Julie Johnson’s Dallas-area district from 62% to 41% Democratic. Rep. Marc Veasey’s district in Dallas-Fort Worth remains a Democratic stronghold, but he would no longer live in the district.
Liberal Austin is further dissolved into neighboring districts. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, who was first elected in 1994 and whose district gave former Vice President Kamala Harris her largest margin of victory in all of Texas, announced in August that he would not seek reelection if the proposed maps are upheld by the courts, avoiding a primary with Rep. Greg Casar, also of Austin.
California has 52 House representatives, nine of whom are Republicans and 43 are Democrats.
In 2020, Republicans flipped three Democratic-held seats for the first time since 1994. They’ve held two of them, including Rep. David Valadao’s 22nd District in the Central Valley.
Under the proposed map, Valadao’s district would go from being 47% Democratic in 2024 to 49% Democratic, making him slightly more vulnerable. And GOP Rep. Darrell Issa’s 48th District near San Diego would change from 42% to 52% Democratic.
In Southern California, Rep. Ken Calvert’s 41st District in Riverside would be redrawn further toward Los Angeles, shifting it from a district that was 47% Democratic in 2024 to one that is 57% Democratic under the proposed maps.
In Northern California, GOP Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s District 1, which includes the most northeastern part of the state, would shift further south toward Marin County and the northern part would be absorbed in the 2nd District, home to heavily Democratic Eureka and the northern Pacific coast. Rep. Kevin Kiley’s district, which snakes along the California-Nevada border through Death Valley, would instead move further toward heavily Democratic Sacramento. Republican Rep. Tom McClintock’s 5th District would be shifted to include the southern portions of what was Kiley’s district.
Kiley, whose district would go from one that was 48% Democratic in 2024 to one that is 55% Democratic, has been an outspoken critic of redistricting, even introducing legislation in the House to ban mid-decade redistricting.
After Texas and California’s redistricting efforts, Kehoe called a special session of Missouri’s legislature to take up redistricting. Missouri currently has two Democratic representatives in Congress: Rep. Wesley Bell, who represents St. Louis and was first elected in 2025, and Cleaver, who has represented the Kansas City area since 2005.
As Missouri has trended toward Republicans over the past 20 years, Cleaver’s district has been a target of the GOP, especially in the 2021 redistricting when several lawmakers pushed for what was called the “7 to 1 map” that would have redrawn the 5th Congressional District to be more Republican. Lawmakers ultimately decided against that plan. St. Louis’ NPR station reported that Republicans worried that the short-term gains from carving up the district could lead to long-term problems in the neighboring suburban districts.
Nonetheless, the Missouri GOP joined the redistricting effort in 2025. Under the new map, Cleaver’s district transforms from one that is 62% Democratic to one that is 41% Democratic. Cleaver says he still plans to run for reelection.
The neighboring 4th and 6th Districts both become slightly bluer, to 39% and 36% Democratic, respectively, but they are still safely Republican.
By expanding the 2nd District south and west, GOP Rep. Ann Wagner’s district becomes redder, going from 46% Democratic in 2024 to 44%. While Wagner has maintained her grip on the district, Mr. Trump won by only 100 votes under the previous lines in 2020. In the 2021 redistricting, Wagner’s district lost some of the Democratic-leaning St. Louis County.
North Carolina has 14 congressional seats, 10 of which are held by Republicans. But the state is not as solidly red as that breakdown would suggest — it’s closer to a 50/50 state at the presidential level these days, and the state’s governor and attorney general are both Democrats.
In the redistricting push undertaken this fall, North Carolina Republicans are targeting a single seat: Rep. Don Davis’ 1st Congressional District. Davis’ win in 2024 in the northeastern part of the state was a rare bright spot for Democrats, especially after Republicans were able to flip congressional three seats in North Carolina that year.
In the map passed by the North Carolina Assembly on Oct. 21 and 22, Davis’ district boundaries move further south, into the current 3rd District. That changes the makeup of the district from one that was 48% Democratic to one that is 44% Democratic.
Utah redistricting
Utah’s redistricting is different from the other states’ campaigns, starting with the fact that the state does not have any Democratic members of Congress. The redistricting push also wasn’t kicked off by Mr. Trump and Republicans or in retaliation for moves by other states. Utah’s 2025 redistricting was put in motion this summer when a judge ruled the current districts were in violation of a voter-approved measure to prevent partisan gerrymandering.
The GOP-controlled legislature put forward four maps for public comment, and ultimately on Oct. 6 approved a map that would be the least competitive for Democrats. It will still need a judge’s final seal of approval.
The only blue-leaning area of Utah, Salt Lake County, was split into three districts in the maps approved in 2021. But the proposed map will split Salt Lake County into two districts, speading out making Districts 2 and 3 more competitive for Democrats.
But as University of Utah professor Matthew Burbank pointed out in an interview with CBS News, “however the lines are drawn, Republicans are not likely to lose a whole lot of seats.” Burbank said if the 2026 election is really competitive in Utah, it will likely have more to do with Mr. Trump.
“The state is, at the moment, a little uncertain, not because Democrats have really done anything to make themselves more competitive,” Burbank said. “It’s really been on the Republican side. There is a bit of a split … this was a state in 2016, a heavily Republican state but clearly not a pro-Trump state.”
While Mr. Trump won Utah in 2016, it was not by the margins that would be expected in such a red state. But in 2024, Mr. Trump did better in the state and other elected officials in the state seemed to have adjusted to be more pro-Trump — something that could cause backlash with voters in 2026.
Poll shows how California voters feel about Prop 50 redistricting effort – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Democrats in California want to add more of their party’s seats to Congress, but they need voters’ approval first. CBS News’ Anthony Salvanto has the data on how voters are feeling about the redistricting effort.
North Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday gave final approval to a new congressional map intended to pick up another seat for Republicans, undercutting the influence of Black voters in a district they have historically dominated and heeding President Donald Trump’s nationwide demand for more favorable maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Republicans in the state House passed the new map 66-48 over the fierce objection of Democrats, who debated for just an hour before Rep. John Bell moved to cut off debate and proceed to a vote. The map has already passed the Senate and the state constitution prohibits Democratic Gov. Josh Stein from vetoing the map, so it now becomes law.
“I can’t watch it die like this, but it seems like I’m going to have to,” said House Democratic Leader Robert Reives, who was permitted to respond before the vote and later said he was referring to “our independence, our democracy.”
“I would ask that you mark this day,” Reives said, “because one day they’re coming to you, they’re going to ask you to do something that you just can’t do. And because we have set the precedent that only one man in this party matters, you’re going home.”
N.C. House Democratic Leader Robert Reives speaks against Senate Bill 249, a bill to realign the North Carolina congressional districts, on Oct. 22, 2025, at the General Assembly in Raleigh. Robert Willett rwillett@newsobserver.com
Since introducing the new map, Republicans have been frank about their intentions, admitting openly that the goal is to draw a new safe seat for the GOP and fend off Democrats’ chances of winning a majority in Congress in 2026.
“It’s a fact that we will send one more Republican to Congress from this great state,” House Majority Leader Brenden Jones, a Columbus County Republican, said. “You can be mad about redistricting all you want, but you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself, what got us here.”
Rep. Pricey Harrison, sporting a ‘Fair Map’ sticker, talks with Rep. Brenden Jones prior to the House session, where Senate Bill 249, a bill to realign the North Carolina congressional districts, was scheduled for debate, on Oct. 22, 2025 at the General Assembly in Raleigh. Robert Willett rwillett@newsobserver.com
Recent rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and North Carolina Supreme Court have effectively legalized partisan gerrymandering, allowing lawmakers to brazenly draw maps in their own party’s favor without fear of legal reprisal.
The new map replaces an only two-year-old congressional map that was already aggressively gerrymandered in Republicans’ favor.
In 2024, Republicans won 10 of the state’s 14 congressional seats despite winning 53% of the statewide congressional vote. Now, they could take 11 seats and increase Republicans’ chance of holding a majority in Congress, even as Trump faces low approval ratings.
When a court-appointed group of experts drew the state’s congressional map for the 2022 midterms, it results in an even seven Democrats and seven Republicans winning seats.
Rapid rollout with scant public input
Wednesday’s vote comes less than a week after the new map was released to the public, marking a particularly rapid rollout with few opportunities for input from the public.
In previous years, lawmakers held public forums to hear from voters in the affected districts. This year, lawmakers heard public comment in two committee hearings in Raleigh in which each speaker was limited to one minute. Lawmakers also accepted public comment via an online portal which, as of Wednesday, had received over 12,000 comments, according to Democratic Rep. Beth Helfrich, of Mecklenburg County.
“Behold the process that led to today: secretive, dismissive, six days-long from end to end, and frankly, disrespectful of the people of North Carolina,” Rep. Phil Rubin, a Wake County Democrat, said. “…You have treated them as obstacles to be managed.”
Hundreds of protesters rallied against the map at the state Capitol on Tuesday while Democrats, joined by North Carolina’s first Black congresswoman, Eva Clayton, accused Republicans of disenfranchising a historically Black community.
“They want to lock in that no Democrat, and especially no Black Democrat, will ever win again,” Clayton said at a press conference.
Republican lawmakers repeatedly stated that they did not use racial data when drawing the map.
National redistricting war
North Carolina is the latest state to enter the national redistricting wars, which began this summer when Texas Republicans enacted a Trump-backed plan to flip five Democratic seats in their favor.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly announced a retaliatory plan to pick up five Democratic seats in his state’s own congressional map. That plan must now be approved by the state’s voters.
Despite the fact that Texas was the first state to redistrict this year, Republican lawmakers repeatedly stated that California began the redistricting fight and necessitated redrawing North Carolina’s congressional map.
“We’re here today because California and the radical left launched a full-fledged coordinated attack not only on North Carolina, but the integrity of democracy itself,” Jones said.
“… Republican-led states are here to make sure that one man does not predetermine the control of Congress.”
Republican state lawmakers have repeatedly and explicitly stated that they decided to redraw North Carolina’s map because Trump asked for it.
While they proudly admitted to heeding the president’s call, legislative leaders said they have not had specific conversations with the Trump administration about the new map.
Nevertheless, Trump endorsed the effort last week, writing on social media that it would give North Carolinians “an opportunity to elect an additional MAGA Republican.”
Senate leader Phil Berger, who faces a contentious primary election against Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page, has denied claims that he agreed to redraw the state’s map in exchange for an endorsement from Trump.
“That’s a ridiculous accusation,” Berger told reporters on Monday. “Unfounded, unsupported and simply not true.”
Legal challenges ahead
While partisan gerrymandering is no longer a viable legal challenge, the new map is still expected to be challenged in court.
Because it primarily affects a historically racial minority district, critics are expected to sue over racial gerrymandering, arguing that the map illegally dilutes the voting power of Black residents. In fact, the current congressional map is already being challenged in federal court for the same reason.
However, a federal judge recently rejected a similar case that challenged North Carolina’s state Senate districts, writing that there was a lack of “contemporary evidence of intentional discrimination concerning the right to vote against Black voters.”
And an upcoming ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court could gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which has formed the legal basis for racial gerrymandering cases for decades.
Follow More of Our Reporting on Instagram & TikTok at The News & Observer
Kyle Ingram is a politics reporter for the News & Observer. He reports on the legislature, voting rights and more in North Carolina politics. He is a graduate of the Hussman School of Journalism and Media at UNC-Chapel Hill.
N.C. Gov. Josh Stein speaks during a press conference in Raleigh, N.C., Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2025.
Ethan Hyman
ehyman@newsobserver.com
The North Carolina state budget continues to be late, with the state joining only Pennsylvania as the two holdouts without a comprehensive spending plan.
Democratic Gov. Josh Stein said the General Assembly is “failing” by not passing a new budget.
This isn’t a partisan debate between a Democratic government and Republican-controlled legislature, as it was with the very late 2021 state budget, which didn’t become law into November.
North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein is greeted by House Speaker Destin Hall, and Senate leader Phil Berger before delivering his State of the State address to a joint session of the General Assembly on March 12 in the House chamber of the Legislative Building. Travis Long tlong@newsobserver.com
The stalemate is between the Republican-controlled House led by House Speaker Destin Hall and Republican-controlled Senate led by Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger. The main differences are over future tax cuts, raises and funding a children’s hospital.
Berger told reporters on Monday night after a Senate voting session that because of state law, the state continues to operate at current spending levels, saying that “if we can’t get agreement on anything beyond what we have, then what we have is certainly adequate for the functioning of state government at this time.”
He said Senate Republicans have made proposals, but that “what the House is willing to do is not what the Senate is willing to do.”
“It’s a simple fact that we’ve not been able to reach an agreement on additional matters for the budget, and we continue to have conversations” with the House, he said.
‘Budget is left behind’
Stein criticized legislators for spending their time in Raleigh this week on drawing a new congressional map that favors Republicans over Rep. Don Davis, a Democrat who represents the 1st Congressional District in northeastern North Carolina.
Sen. Joyce Waddell, a Mecklenburg County Democrat, spoke during the Senate’s floor debate over the maps, saying the “budget is left behind,” and state services and employees pay the price while Republicans focus on redistricting instead.
“Instead of doing the people’s business, they are failing the voters of North Carolina by deciding for them who their congressional representation will be. It’s outrageous,” Stein said.
Stein said he has talked to Hall and Berger “about a number of topics” in recent weeks, primarily about Medicaid funding. Stein’s administration implemented cuts in Medicaid spending on Oct. 1 as pressure mounts on lawmakers to send Stein a bill with more funding.
“I urge them to do what’s right for people and not what’s right for themselves politically,” Stein said Monday.
“They are failing the people of North Carolina by not having a budget that invests in our people,” Stein said, citing law enforcement hiring, teacher pay, state employees including the Division of Motor Vehicles, and Medicaid.
Berger, however, noted that the legislature has funded some Medicaid spending and that state employees are continuing to be paid.
Senate leader Phil Berger, pictured speaking on the Senate floor on April 16, 2025 at the General Assembly in Raleigh, N.C. Robert Willett rwillett@newsobserver.com
The two-year budget frequently includes across-the-board raises for state employees and teachers, whose base pay is set by the General Assembly. Two small budget bills have been passed in the past few months that included some funding for the embattled DMV and authorization for longevity-based raises, or step increases.
Stein said he will keep urging the House and Senate “to get their priorities straight, to pass a meaningful budget that invests in our people.”
Dawn Baumgartner Vaughan is the Capitol Bureau Chief for The News & Observer, leading coverage of the legislative and executive branches in North Carolina with a focus on the governor, General Assembly leadership and state budget. She has received the McClatchy President’s Award, N.C. Open Government Coalition Sunshine Award and several North Carolina Press Association awards, including for politics and investigative reporting.
The Supreme Court is deliberating a case today that could reshape congressional redistricting nationwide, focusing on racial gerrymandering in Louisiana.States are allowed to redistrict based on party lines, but this case in the Supreme Court deals with gerrymandering along racial lines and could change who you’re voting for. If the Supreme Court justices get rid of Section Two, the last remaining part of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in redistricting, it could upend electoral maps nationwide.At issue is Louisiana’s congressional map, which has two majority Black districts. The state drew a new map in 2022, but civil rights advocates argued in federal court that it violated part of the Voting Rights Act because it only included one majority Black district. They won, and the state redrew the map, but a group claimed it was racist against them. A court agreed, leading to the current Supreme Court case.A ruling in favor of Louisiana could open the door for states with large minority populations, mostly red states in the South, to redraw congressional districts, essentially eliminating majority Black and Latino seats that tend to favor Democrats.”If the court, as I think some people expect, says you can’t use race ever anymore, or if the Voting Rights Act allows you to use race, then that violates the Constitution under the 14th and 15th amendments, then we are basically done with the Voting Rights Act,” American University Washington College of Law Professor Stephen Wermiel said.Once the Supreme Court hears arguments today, a decision will most likely be released in the late spring or early summer.Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:
WASHINGTON —
The Supreme Court is deliberating a case today that could reshape congressional redistricting nationwide, focusing on racial gerrymandering in Louisiana.
States are allowed to redistrict based on party lines, but this case in the Supreme Court deals with gerrymandering along racial lines and could change who you’re voting for.
If the Supreme Court justices get rid of Section Two, the last remaining part of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in redistricting, it could upend electoral maps nationwide.
At issue is Louisiana’s congressional map, which has two majority Black districts. The state drew a new map in 2022, but civil rights advocates argued in federal court that it violated part of the Voting Rights Act because it only included one majority Black district. They won, and the state redrew the map, but a group claimed it was racist against them. A court agreed, leading to the current Supreme Court case.
A ruling in favor of Louisiana could open the door for states with large minority populations, mostly red states in the South, to redraw congressional districts, essentially eliminating majority Black and Latino seats that tend to favor Democrats.
“If the court, as I think some people expect, says you can’t use race ever anymore, or if the Voting Rights Act allows you to use race, then that violates the Constitution under the 14th and 15th amendments, then we are basically done with the Voting Rights Act,” American University Washington College of Law Professor Stephen Wermiel said.
Once the Supreme Court hears arguments today, a decision will most likely be released in the late spring or early summer.
Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:
Shouting, finger-pointing, and accusations of racism and illegal activity dominated a three-hour Fort Bend County Commissioners Court meeting Monday that culminated in the approval of new precinct boundaries that will split the county 50-50 red and blue.
The new map takes effect January 1, ahead of the 2026 elections when County Judge KP George, a new Republican, and two Democratic commissioners, Grady Prestage and Dexter McCoy, will be on the ballot for re-election.
Fort Bend County’s current precinct maps have three Democratic precincts and one Republican majority precinct. The redistricting effort was necessary, the court’s GOP members have maintained, to more accurately reflect population and voting patterns in the rapidly growing county. Judge George and Republican Commissioners Andy Meyers and Vincent Morales voted for the new map; Prestage and McCoy voted against it.
The Democrats, who had the court majority until George switched parties in June, secured three blue precincts when the maps were last redrawn in 2021. McCoy has maintained that a mid-decade redistricting effort is unnecessary and the maps approved Monday “fracture established communities and prioritize political gain over representation.”
“In their effort to engineer two white plurality precincts, the GOP majority has disregarded our county’s rich diversity, the very fabric of Fort Bend’s identity,” McCoy said in a statement after the meeting. “The voices of minority residents have been undervalued in this process. I voted against these maps because I believe in honest, transparent policies that reflect the people.”
“Moving forward, I will continue to fight for accountability and equity for every resident of Fort Bend County,” he added.
McCoy pointed out that his Precinct 4 was intentionally drawn as a “coalition district,” where two or more separate racial or ethnic minority groups, when combined, form a majority of the population and tend to vote together to elect the minority-preferred candidate.
“It’s ridiculous targeting with no basis in fact,” he said.
Meyers, who chose to move out of his home to relocate in his newly drawn district in ‘21, said, “Today, Commissioners Court took action to correct what had been a flawed process that resulted in an illegal map that did not meet state and federal statutes. Today’s action/decision also more fairly reflects the political makeup of Fort Bend County voters: roughly 50 percent Republican and 50 percent Democrat.”
During the meeting, Prestage said he regretted voting for the map in 2021 that caused Meyers to have to move out of his home.
“I’ll be forever trying to make amends for that,” Prestage said. “If I could do it over again, I would.”
Meyers said he’s responsible for setting the mid-decade redistricting effort in motion because he believes that the 2021 maps were based on race, which is illegal. The two Republicans on the court were not given time to review the map prior to adoption, he said.
The boundaries of the 2021 map have never been challenged in court and are supported by renowned redistricting attorney Bob Bassand the ACLU, among other organizations, McCoy said.
George said in a statement that the adopted maps “were shaped with full transparency, no added costs, and with the people’s voice at the center.”
“This process wasn’t about power. It was about people,” he said. “Do not let political rhetoric distort the truth. This court followed the law, included the public, and brought forward a fair and balanced map that respects every voice in our community.”
Political tension was established early in the meeting when Jacob Lee, chair of the advisory committee that recommended the approved map and a former officer for the Fort Bend County Republican Party, suggested that a transparent process wasn’t followed the last time voter precincts were approved because Democrats used “the COVID scam” to avoid holding public hearings.
McCoy responded, “COVID happened. There was a pandemic declared.”
“Whatever that was,” Lee said. “But it was over. Can we get back to the maps?”
While McCoy was questioning Lee, George told the advisory board chair he could sit down. McCoy then began to question attorney Richard Morris with the firm Rogers, Morris & Grover, hired to advise the committee on redistricting matters. Last month, a majority of the court voted to remove County Attorney Bridgette Smith-Lawson, a Democrat, from participating in redistricting discussions.
Morris refused to provide his credentials as an expert in redistricting law for the benefit of the public. McCoy moved to go into executive session but the motion failed.
“I’m not questioning your legal experience but I think for the record because, between the County Attorney’s Office and whatever else, there have been a lot of questions about your qualifications,” McCoy said.
Morris responded, “With all due respect, commissioner, I’m not going to present my resume. I’ve been hired. I’ve already done the work.”
Commissioner Meyers and Judge George repeatedly tried to stop McCoy from questioning the attorney. George banged a gavel and called for order, and a debate ensued over whether Robert’s Rules of Order was being followed. McCoy objected and just kept talking.
“At the end of the day, y’all are going to pass whatever map y’all want to pass,” he said. “I think we would want to do that with the confidence that we have thoroughly explained to the public exactly why we are doing a mid-decade redistricting.”
At one point, Prestage, a Democrat and the longest-serving elected official in Fort Bend County government, turned to George and said, “You started this. You put it on the agenda. You processed this whole process. It could have been avoided. Sit here and deal with it. You can’t just brush over it. You’ve got to deal with the consequences.”
Fort Bend’s current precincts, approved in 2021, are 60 percent red, 62 percent blue, 53 percent blue, and 56 percent blue. The new map reflects the following voter preferences:
Precinct 1 (Commissioner Vincent Morales-R) 60 percent Republican
The redistricting map approved Monday includes two Republican precincts and two Democratic precincts. Credit: Screenshot
Lee said Monday that the process he spearheaded was transparent and built on principles that called for equal population in each precinct and compact and contiguous districts that are compliant with the Voting Rights Act. His committee held public hearings in each precinct and one town hall meeting.
McCoy said at least 40 residents offered feedback on the ‘21 map prior to its adoption. McCoy was not a commissioner at the time but worked for George as his chief of staff. A few residents suggested Monday that McCoy was the one who delivered the maps to the court in 2021.
The map adopted Monday, referred to as the “Mike Gibson JL Amendment 1 map, is posted on a Fort Bend County redistricting website. Other proposed maps were dismissed because they would have redistricted elected officials out of their homes. Residents who attended the public hearings were also concerned about ensuring that no single commissioner would oversee all of the county’s developable land, Lee said.
Some speakers brought up a concern Monday that Commissioner Meyers, whose district flips from blue to red under the new map, will now be overseeing the vast majority of undeveloped land in Fort Bend County. That allows him to broker a deal with Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to bring a power plant to town, one speaker suggested.
After over an hour of public comment, Commissioner Morales condemned “unnecessary personal attacks” on advisory committee members. George acknowledged that some members of the public don’t like him and said that’s part of democracy. He dismissed claims that the redistricting effort would cost $1 million.
“Do not allow political interests of a few to cloud your judgment about the work being done in the interest of all,” he said. “We’ve heard over and over that we’re breaking the law. We are not breaking any law. Absolutely not.”
Tension remained high in the final moments of Monday’s meeting until George announced adjournment shortly after 4 p.m. George interrupted Smith-Lawson as she tried to make a clarification, and then allowed the hired attorney, Morris, to speak. Commissioner Prestage stood up as though he was going to walk out, and shouting ensued over whether the court needed to first vote on an amendment before approving the original motion.
About a dozen residents spoke against the redistricting process, some of whom brought up George’s legal issues and suggested he may have switched parties and launched the redistricting effort as part of a deal for a ‘get out of jail free card.”
The judge is slated to go to trial in January on misdemeanor identity misrepresentation charges and in February on felony money laundering charges. George has accused Fort Bend District Attorney Brian Middleton, a Democrat, of pursuing a political vendetta against him.
Fort Bend resident Sarah Roberts said she believes an arrangement was made for George to “provide a critical vote to gerrymander our local maps in exchange for preferential legal treatment.”
“In exchange for making Meyers a super-commissioner with nearly half the county’s undeveloped land, Judge George appears to believe he will get a get-out-of-jail-free card. No matter your political alliances or allegiances, corruption is wrong and illegal.”
Chris Pino, a board member of the nonprofit Texans Against Gerrymandering, said the “Mike Gibson map” that was ultimately approved would remove up to half of the Asian voters out of Precinct 3.
“I understand the imperative to draw Republican-leaning maps, and since y’all hold the power, you have the legal right to do that,” he said. “Partisan gerrymandering is legal, but this has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with the clear language of the Constitution.”
Several residents also spoke in support of the redistricting effort.
Margaret Daniel, a Republican Party precinct chair, said the redistricting initiative is focused on “correcting injustice.”
“The action [in 2021] was taken without an advisory committee, without warning,” she said. “As a result, thousands of Fort Bend County voters were left without representation that reflects their communities or voices.”
“Some are now arguing that redrawing the map in 2025 is disruptive, but we must remember that in 2021, over 80 percent of Fort Bend residents were reassigned to new precincts,” Daniel added. “At that time, apparently, disruption wasn’t a concern. I find it a double standard to allow Democrats to racially gerrymander seats for their purposes but declare racism when Republicans are seeking an electoral advantage. I’m advocating for equity.”
