Panic! At The (Re)disco

There is exactly one state where setting democracy on fire will do Democrats any appreciable good.

Democrats are considering retaliatory gerrymandering actions against what Republicans are doing in Texas. However, such measures are highly problematic for a well-working democracy.

I propose that any response should be measured and proportionate. In other words, if there’s going to be a response, it should be limited to the size of the Republican offense. Today I estimate the size of the offense in different states and identify proportionate actions.

There are two reasons for putting limits on action:

1. Democrats currently claim the high ground as the party of making government represent all the people. Going back on that commitment undermines the concept of a responsive, well-working democracy.

2. Democrats have only one clean option for a retaliatory strike: California. Additional options will yield little to no benefit.

The Texas gerrymander is only likely to yield 3 additional seats. Ohio will only add 2 or 3 seats. These offenses are manageable.

What advocates say in favor of tit-for-tat action

First, what is the best argument for considering tit-for-tat action?

Congressional power is determined by the sum of elections in all fifty states. Despite this, each state has its own rules for redistricting. The Supreme Court will not act to restrain partisan gerrymandering, and it keeps on undermining existing federal protections such as the Voting Rights Act. As a result, fair districting is subject only to the laws of individual states. Therefore, having a representative national assembly is subject to the caprice of individual states.

As a worst-case scenario, consider the Great Gerrymander of 2012. As I wrote back when it happened, Republicans had a net advantage of nearly 20 seats. That is the worst advantage in the age of modern voting rights (rights that peaked and are slowly ebbing, thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court).

In plans drawn up in 2022, the Republican advantage is much smaller, about 6 seats. (You can browse all offenses, Republican or Democratic, at the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.)

Now, President Donald Trump wants Republican legislatures in Texas, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and New Hampshire to perform mid-decade redistricting. If all of them complied, it would produce an advantage of about 10 seats on top of the 6 seats I mentioned before. That gets us close to 2012 conditions.

For this reason, an argument can be made for each step taken to benefit Republicans, Democrats should take a countermeasure. In a deep sense, that might be called fair.

The best first step is to reduce gerrymandering. In that respect, blocking the new offenses would be the best move. Texas Democratic legislators are attempting just that. They are fleeing the state and denying quorum, one of the few procedural steps available to them. Based on past history, success is not at all assured, but then again, they’ve never had national attention and presumably, considerable material support.

Assuming that fails, if we are going to go down this road, then it becomes important to actually count seats. By that measure, the realistic current multiseat threats are in Texas, Ohio, and California.

Burning down the House line-drawing process

What states are in a position to redistrict mid-decade? I took a preliminary stab at that question here. What would across-the-board mutual escalation look like?

Here is a table of achievable new gains from mid-decade redistricting.

I constructed this table from two kinds of information. First, working with the Electoral Innovation Lab, Yusuf Arifin has surveyed the laws of all fifty states to identify whether a mid-decade redraw is currently allowed. I have omitted states that forbid it, including states such as Colorado and New York where it would take several years to change the state constitution. I have also left out states whose courts have already limited partisan gerrymandering, in particular Maryland and again New York.

Help support the work of the Electoral Innovation Lab.

Second, I estimated the net gain that would realistically arise from drawing a new gerrymander. This was done using analytic approaches developed here, augmented in some cases by the legions of hobbyists who use Dave’s Redistricting App.

Example: Texas’ new plan may produce only three seats

Texas Republicans have attempted to draw five additional seats for themselves. In 2021 they restrained themselves, in part to forestall a voting rights challenge in federal court. But with a U.S. Department of Justice that is now opposed to racial voting rights, they are trying again.

There are good reasons to suppose that their new map might not work out as they have planned. The effectiveness of their handiwork rests on three assumptions:

1. Support for Republicans in 2026 will match support for Trump in 2024.

2. Trump’s gains in 2024 will be matched downticket in Congressional races.

3. Latino voters will both maintain their recent swing toward Trump and maintain off-year turnout.

There are problems with all three of these assumptions.

Mid-term swing. Republicans will almost certainly lose support in 2026. This is why they are desperate to redistrict.

In dozens of special elections this year, the median D-minus-R swing is 13 points compared with the 2024 Presidential vote. This overperformance has a track record of predicting the swing in the next Congressional election. Texas Republicans have built in 10-point margins based on Trump-versus-Harris 2024 election results, but it might not be enough.

Short coattails. Trump made major inroads in Texas, especially in Hispanic and border communities. But even in 2024, Democratic congressmen were able to win in districts where Trump got more votes than Harris. In particular, pro-Democratic margins were 13 points better for Rep. Henry Cuellar (CD28) and 7 points better for Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (CD34). Those candidates have some special connection to their border communities. This will still help them in 2026.

Latino letdown. Hispanic voters swung toward Trump by 22 points in 2024 compared to 2020. I estimate that nearly half of that swing has reversed; Hispanic approval for Trump is now only 35% nationally. I don’t know where that will end up, but I also note that Hispanic turnout tends to be poor in midterm elections.

Democrats’ few options

There are very few paths for Democrats to pursue. For example, Maryland and New York courts have already limited partisan gerrymandering. In New York, mid-decade redistricting is additionally prevented by Article 3, Section 4 of the New York Constitution. In those states, there is no easy path to draw new gerrymanders.

If Democrats insist on committing this offense, there is only one state that will make a substantial difference: California.

California's redistricting is currently done by an independent redistricting commission. Overriding that commission would require a change in the state constitution. Governor Gavin Newsom is considering bringing such an amendment to the voters in a special election this fall. The Legislature would have to pass the amendment by a two-thirds vote, and it would go before voters on November 4.

If the law changes, it would be possible to add five safely Democratic seats to California's delegation. Such a map would be enough to counteract the combined effect of new gerrymanders in Texas (3 seats) and Ohio (2 seats).

In some ways, California offers the least reputational risk to Democrats. They have faced claims that the state is already gerrymandered, since it’s currently 43 Democrats to 9 Republicans. That is untrue: the pattern arises simply because of the natural geography of the state. With a mid-decade redraw, critics can find out what an actual gerrymander looks like.

Any change should be temporary. California’s commission process has been highly successful and presents a model of how a fair process ought to work. It draws reasonably fair Congressional and legislative maps. Its Congressional map got a grade of B from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project (which is a good grade; California’s geography makes an A impossible under the PGP rubric). Good government, and doing the least damage to democracy, requires reinstating that system in 2031.

Digging coins out of the couch

After California, Texas, and Ohio, there are fewer coins to be scraped out of the couch by either party. The next tranche is unpromising: Missouri, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.

To redraw its map, Missouri would have to overcome resistance within the Republican caucus, but could make its 5th District Republican.

In New Hampshire, Democratic and Republican voters are interspersed throughout the state. Drawing even a competitive but Republican-leaning district is nearly impossible, and would require something like this:

Would New Hampshire really do this? From DRA user tresj145

New Jersey currently uses an independent redistricting commission*. Changing that would require bringing a constitutional amendment to voters in 2025. That process would have to start immediately.

The current map in New Jersey has 8 Democratic districts, 3 Republican districts and 1 swing district, and is approximately what would arise from a neutral line-drawing process. Drawing a gerrymander might convert a Republican district in south Jersey. That one-seat gain does not seem like enough to justify discarding a decades-old reform.

A New Jersey pro-Democratic gerrymander, from DRA user Asterlan.

Keep it in California

At a troubled time for US democracy, it is understandable that people may be in a panic over next year's congressional election. Three seats would be enough to change control of Congress, and the median change in a midterm election is 13 seats. Generally, one would want any distortions from mid-decade gerrymandering to be smaller than that.

Any action to blunt the effects of mid-decade redistricting should be done with an eye to the actual benefit. Everywhere but California, the benefits are pretty small.

*Disclosure: the Princeton Gerrymandering Project was the technical consultant for the New Jersey redistricting commission.

Thanks to Yusuf Arifin for legal research.