Congressional redistricting runs wild

Gordon L. Weil

Gerrymandering is running wild, threatening the popular government created by the Constitution.

With the House of Representatives almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, the scramble for control after the 2026 elections is collapsing into a redistricting rush designed to steer more seats to one party or the other.  Gerrymandering is nothing new, but this year there’s a major new twist.

The Republicans, believing that their majority control could be lost as demographics change, use a nationwide push to redistrict, seeking to engineer their long-term control.  Gerrymandering could weaken the influence of Democratic voters and serve as part of the GOP effort to suppress minority voting.

The Supreme Court has ruled that each district within a state must have the same population, ensuring that each voter counts equally.   This usually forces the 44 multi-district states to redraw their lines after each national census, conducted every ten years.

While some states use systems designed to produce non-partisan redistricting, in many others partisan state legislatures tailor the districts to their advantage.  That can mean stuffing as many of the minority party’s voters into as few districts as possible or splitting them to dilute the minority party’s impact everywhere.  That’s gerrymandering.

Now, the once-every-ten-years process is turning into redistricting before each congressional election.  The individual voter is a political pawn, moved to a new district by the party that, for the time being, controls the state legislature.  Elections aren’t an exercise in democracy; they are a game.   The Democrats are now playing the same GOP game.

Gerrymandering (named after a politician who first created a district resembling a salamander) can depress voter turnout.  If a voter is shifted into a district where their party’s candidate is sure to lose, why bother voting?  In gerrymandered Texas, candidates in eight of the 38 districts run unopposed, because opposition would be futile. 

When voters stay home, their absence can affect other races.  A larger turnout of discouraged Democratic voters in Wisconsin, one of the two most gerrymandered states, might have helped the U.S. Senate election of Republican Ron Johnson, who won narrowly.  GOP strategists believe lower turnout helps their candidates.

With constant redistricting, the partisan divide in the U.S. electorate is likely to become locked in.  Control of the House may come to depend on the outcome of a few elections influenced by massive outside spending. 

Before 1967, states could choose how they elected their House members.  Historically, some used statewide voting.  Hawaii, the last state with statewide voting, was forced to abandon it in 1970.  The 1967 law requires all states to use single-member districts.  

If that law were repealed, electing members of Congress statewide could eliminate or reduce gerrymandering.  Candidates might run focusing more on national policy and not merely on their ability to bring home federal dollars. As the Framers intended, they could better reflect the short-term evolution of the popular will on national issues.

This reform is not partisan and would leave the election method to each state.  Both parties could benefit.  Wisconsin, the most gerrymandered GOP state, would likely go from six Republicans and two Democrats to an even 4-4 split.  Maryland, the most gerrymandered Democratic state, would probably go from seven Democrats and one Republican to a 4-4 split.

In some states, like California (more Republican members) or Texas (more Democrats), the changes in House delegations could be substantial.  The potential offsetting advantages across the entire country could reduce the partisan implications of repealing the 1967 law.

States could elect some House members at-large and the remainder by districts.  Maine and Nebraska choose presidential electors this way.  With fewer, larger districts, gerrymandering could be reduced. 

Voters could vote for as many candidates as the number of the at-large House seats in a state, though they could “bullet vote” for as little as one candidate.  This could parallel ranked-choice voting.  Candidates might take moderate positions to broaden their appeal, reducing divisiveness.

Candidates could be listed with their party affiliations.  Voters could choose to vote for all candidates of a single party.  Wider choice could allow non-aligned candidates a better chance of election.   The top candidates equal to the number of a state’s at-large slots, regardless of their affiliation, would be the winners. 

The House election would be separate from statewide voting for president, senators, governor and other state officials.  These are distinct offices, and separate ballots could permit a state’s voters to balance their choices.

If the law were changed and even one large state successfully chose statewide House elections, its move could set an example for other states.  Or elections might stay as they are.

To conform with the Framers’ original intent, restoring this long-standing state right can happen without amending the Constitution.   Ending deepening national division makes it time to think outside the partisan box about reforms like this.

 

 

Will Trump's low poll ratings translate into votes?

Gordon L. Weil

Lurking behind almost all political speculation about the Trump regime is whether low poll ratings of him and his performance may translate into the results of the 2026 congressional elections.

If the Trump GOP can hold onto control of both the House and Senate, Trump could be emboldened to extend his efforts to reshape not only the American government but the entire nation.  If the Democrats gain some political leverage, they would have a chance at halting his progress or even reversing some of his changes.

While he is making drastic changes to the way the government operates, aided thus far by a supportive Supreme Court, the best national polls, based on their careful and publicly revealed methods, show that his performance is unpopular, as is each of his major policy moves. 

The likely electorate is about evenly divided between Republicans, Democrats and independents.  While he continues to enjoy strong support among the Trump GOP, the Democrats steadfastly oppose, and a clear majority of independents joins them.  Will these sentiments convert into votes for Democrats and independents or will partisan loyalties prevail at the ballot box in 2026?

The latest NY Times/Siena poll reveals the doubts of some Republicans.  Asked if Trump’s “actions go so far that they are a unique threat to our system of government,” 45 percent of Republicans said they did.  Even 17 percent of Republicans said he is exceeding his lawful powers.  And 26 percent thought he had gone too far in attacking the media.

On possibly the most important question, given Trump’s promises to improve the economy, 42 percent of Republicans said his moves had not made much of a difference to them.  People who have been struggling with prices and wages offered him support in 2024.  Without improvement in their lives, some become possible defectors.

If some of Trump’s key policies were receiving a net positive response, they might outweigh these sentiments.  But they aren’t, possibly leaving him with the hope that his forecast of a thriving economy works next year and impresses voters just in time.

Without a strong and unified Democratic Party, this could mean that the 2026 elections, though focused on Congress, would be a referendum on Trump.  Before the vote, the Democrats could better target their campaign to the concerns of a broad number of voters – the economy, health care, and jobs.  Or Trump could abruptly change course, at least on some issues.

Beyond the possible loss of some Republicans, so disillusioned with Trump that they would vote against him, the other election rebalancing could be a higher turnout than usual for a congressional election year.  The electorate shrank between the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, including many Democrats, so some absentees might come back to vote.

While the 2026 elections could look like a referendum, they will consist of 435 separate House races and 35 Senate contests (including two special elections).  Conventional wisdom is that the party opposing the president usually picks up seats. With only a four-seat margin now, the Trump GOP is trying to gerrymander districts to allow them to surmount the conventional outcome.

Both parties usually win most House districts by large margins, especially when aided by incumbency.  But, in 2024, each won enough seats by a margin of less than five percent to be able to tip the balance in their favor, if they hold their own and pick up a few close races they had lost.

Democrats (and independents) would be likely to focus on GOP seats in Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Texas and Florida.  Those seats could make the difference.

The Senate is different and closer to a referendum, because national issues often arise in statewide races.  Twenty-two Republican seats and only 13 Democratic slots are at stake.

The most vulnerable Senate Republican is Maine’s Susan Collins.  Despite her easy past wins, the Democrats will challenge her Trump support, and she is polling poorly.  Open seats held by the GOP in Iowa, Kentucky and North Carolina will be highly contested.  Perhaps surprisingly, even Texas, Ohio and Alaska could be in play.

While the Democrats could regain House control, they are unlikely to move from their 47 seats (including two independents) in the Senate to the 60 that would give them a veto over Trump, unless he faces a tidal wave of rejection.  But they could set the Senate agenda with only a simple majority, as the GOP now does.

This analysis does not suggest that the Democrats will pick up control of either house, just that it’s possible, depending mainly on Trump.  But he has become more vulnerable since his inauguration.

The campaign may have just begun with the shutdown clash.  We are entering into the season of speculation as more state and local elections, including New York City, build toward next year’s vote. 

Republican lawmakers challenge government chief

 

Gordon L. Weil

Only two elements of the federal government seem capable of halting President Trump’s overreach in using his powers – the courts and at least some Republican members of the House and Senate who could join the Democrats in reclaiming congressional powers.  So far, it’s not the GOP, with one Republican senator admitting she’s afraid of Trump.

But there’s at least one clear case of GOP legislators pushing back against an executive effort not only to fire experienced personnel but to slash or abolish a government agency.  It happened in Oklahoma this month.

Governor Kevin Stitt is a Republican.  At the start of the current session, the House was composed of 80 Republicans and 20 Democrats.  The Senate was composed of 39 Republicans and 8 Democrats.  Stitt should be able to get backing for almost any action.

In mid-March, Oklahoma experienced major wildfires, which state and local firefighters struggled to extinguish.  The Oklahoma Forestry Service, the key state agency, had undergone staff cuts under Stitt and was limited in how far it could extend its resources. But the governor claimed that it had deployed only about half of its personnel on the peak day of the fires.

He promptly fired the head of the OFS, a highly respected person who had worked at the agency for 40 years.  The governor also cut other top managers.  He went even further, questioning the need for the agency and proposing almost fatal cuts to its budget.

In Trump’s Washington, the president could have gotten away with such moves.  But not in Oklahoma City.

The House Speaker and the Senate president pro tem both spoke against Stitt’s actions. They pledged to ensure that OFS funding would be locked in.  Their stance mattered because, even after Stitt implicitly admitted that the entire state force had been deployed, he did not back off. Only after public opinion swung to back the legislative leaders, he said OFS would survive.

Why could Oklahoma Republicans oppose their own governor, while the GOP in Congress acquiesces in Trump’s moves, even at the expense of their own constitutional powers?

With political support that cannot be attributed to Stitt’s endorsement, the Oklahoma members may feel more loyal to their constituencies than to their governor.  Local opinions mattered more than the demands of a governor placing his views ahead of the public interest. In relatively small districts, voters could get to know members, rather acceding to Stitt’s influence.

The split between the two branches of government went a step further.  The governor complained that the legislature had passed some bills sponsored by Democrats.  One-party rule, obviously possible, suited him.  So much for meeting public sentiments in favor of government cooperation.

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert responded to Stitt.  He noted that 20 percent of the House was Democratic, but only six percent of the bills passed had been sponsored by Democrats. 

Apart from the specific issues, the Oklahoma case reveals the survival of institutional checks and balances can take place even when one party completely dominates and that bipartisanship can happen even in a setting far more partisan than Washington.

 

[If you like this blog, please share it with others and recommend they read it regularly.]

Republican Right would bar compromise

Gordon L. Weil

It’s only a small issue, but it explains why talk about cooperation between the two parties is nothing more than a convenient myth, otherwise known as a lie.

The Maine House Republicans complain that the governor has “nominated a former Democrat state legislator” to be Public Advocate.  There it is: the persistent use by the GOP of the word “Democrat” when the correct word is “Democratic,” as in the official, legal name of the party.

The use of “Democrat” is meant as a slur, a way Republicans annoy Democratic legislators and to suggest that the traditional party has been replaced by an extreme liberal version.  The Democrats have not counterattacked with their own slur for the Republicans, though the traditional GOP has itself been replaced by Trump loyalists.

The almost total and persistent opposition to Democrats goes beyond the word.  The extreme right-wing Freedom Caucus in the House warned their support for Speaker Mike Johnson depends on his refusing to rely on Democratic support to pass bills.  Johnson’s version of bipartisanship occurs when the Democrats fall in line behind the GOP.

Susan Collins, Maine’s Republican senator, told a state university audience that she favors compromise over conflict. The result, she said, “would produce a very different legislative climate, one in which the objective is to solve the problem, not just to score political points.”  In her speech, she used the term “Democratic.”  That little “ic” may justify her moderate label.

But the Republican game, especially in Washington, is all about scoring political points.  If you score enough points, you win the game and can change the country. Standing in the way of GOP extremism might be a handful of loyal Republicans, including Collins, supporting good government over partisanship. That will take courage, which requires taking risks.

After a sound electoral victory and enjoying the first year of his term, Trump dominates.  He pressured Freedom Caucus members to support Johnson, allowing the peaceful January 6 electoral vote count.  But his political attacks replace the truth. Trump claimed the New Orleans slaughter resulted from illegal immigration, though the alleged killer was American-born.

The Republican extreme right is determined to play a massive blame game, attributing anything that goes wrong to the Democrats.  That is hardly the way to compromise, but guarantees conflict. 

The right can block decisions, if Johnson won’t allow any bills to pass that depend on Democratic support.   With a slim majority, the Speaker needs their votes to pass almost any bill with only GOP votes.

If the federal government has any chance for compromise, it’s up to the Democrats.  They need to stop agonizing over why they lost and try to respond to popular concerns.  Important as they may be, some social issues seem to be marginal compared with making government more responsive to public demands on spending and taxes.

The Democrats need to develop a platform containing an agreed agenda for government action.  It cannot offer something for everyone, and it must focus creatively on core issues like trade, Social Security reform, and immigration.

The party could start a platform development process now, involving the National Committee and people from across the country.  Presumably, the new party chair, who will not be the party’s visible leader, could manage this process.

The Democrats need a coherent and constructive agenda before the 2026 congressional elections.  They also need a leader. They cannot put off both decisions until the 2028 campaign.

The major financial backers of the Democratic Party could focus on potential standard bearers they would support.  While the ultimate choice is up to the party faithful, the Democrats’ menu could be prepared ahead of the 2028 primary wars. Meanwhile, they would have visible leaders with financial backing to speak for their platform.

The Democrats should be looking at issues on their own merits, reflecting the popular will, rather than simply opposing the Republicans.  That means they could support some Trump proposals.  If a GOP initiative could be improved, they should offer changes, but not lend their votes in return for political payoffs involving more spending.

Possibly the best way for Republicans to listen to Democratic ideas and for Democrats to make cooperation a reality would be to revive the tradition of an unofficial, bipartisan group of senators that would attempt to develop policies acceptable to a majority of each party in the Senate.  Four moderates from each party could do it.

If the Senate could agree on proposals backed by majorities in each party while the House produced distinctly partisan bills, another tradition could be revived.  Representatives of the two houses would meet in a conference committee where they might at least try to come up with a bill that could pass both houses.  The House could then be faced with accepting or rejecting the deal.