I really appreciate your work and this information. It validates my gut reaction to retaliatory gerrymandering. I agree with what you said below about partisan Democrats. Republicans plan for Democrats running around like chickens with their heads cut off and then shooting themselves in the foot.
I hope your data breaks through. At this point, I have a lot more faith in Texas Democrats than National Democrats to understand the math.
From a resource allocation standpoint, it might make sense for Texas Democrats to flee the state and prevent a quorum. There's a fine of $500/day/member. Honestly, Democrats would probably get more bang for their buck by paying that fine, rather than all this panic.
Fascinating analysis! You write: "The Texas gerrymander is only likely to yield 3 additional seats. Ohio will only add 2 or 3 seats. These offenses are manageable."
As I understand it, the gerrymander of North Carolina was sufficient to give Republicans control of the House after the 2024 elections. Perhaps you can confirm or point out that I am wrong?
In my opinion, neither Democrats nor America can afford to insist on "principles" if the consequence is ceding power, perhaps for years or decades to come. What Trump and today’s MAGA Republican Party are doing with their power is just too heinous and damaging! Moreover, they are continuing to increase their power, including filling federal courts with highly-partisan and often-unqualified judges that are going to decide legal challenges. We are, tragically, living in a time when the Roberts–Alito led court seems willing to find that the Constitution itself is "unconstitutional"!
It is incredible how dense partisan Democrats can be when they are in a panic.
I understand the emotion, but really, stop and think about whether you want to set parts of the building on fire that do not help. All-out warfare *will not actually help.*
As a direct answer: I have written about this before. Any gerrymander that produced 3 or more seats could be said to be determinative of current House control. That would include North Carolina, Texas, and Florida, as well the combination of UT+TN+IN.
However, it would be hypocritical to ignore similar offenses by Democrats, such as Illinois, NV+OR+MD, and the attempted gerrymander in New York state.
"I understand the emotion, but really, stop and think about whether you want to set parts of the building on fire that do not help. All-out warfare *will not actually help.*"
This is one of the arguments that needs to be had. I'll stop for a second on your use of "all out warfare" and set that aside as a straw man.
The question to me about decennial redistricting and other norms we value is not about tit for tat, it's about creating consequences and deterrence.
Right now, no elected Republican I am aware of is consistently sticking up to Trump against the most egregiously unconstitutional acts I've ever seen, likely in the history of the country. Some are not dong anything at all, others are actually facilitating.
On the micro - What if him pushing too hard on Texas means Illinois Republicans are worried about the consequence of losing their seats? - Maybe they speak up and call a halt to the whole thing.
On the macro - if every response is proportional to the offense - only the same number of seats in return - then what's the risk for Republicans? It's only that their misdeeds will amount to a wash, and only if they can't use other constitutional transgressions to head that response off the pass the next time around - more states, more seats or using whatever advantages they have (overtly partisan State Supreme Courts for example) to override state legislatures.
But if they know their aggression will have consequences - if they take a few seats and even more of their Members lose theirs - I hope they will have the motivation to sit down together and have a conversation about how none of us want to be in this precarious position again and that some of the norms we took for granted for centuries need to be made into easily enforceable rules.
I hope that's not "dense" or full of "panic" (though I am really freaked out about where this might be going.)
IMHO, the core problem is that the Roberts Supreme Court openly decided to allow egregious political gerrymanders. SCOTUS had the opportunity to put a stop to all this! As I recall, you yourself worked hard to prevent that.
That said, a key question is: what are the respective parties using their power to achieve?
Trump and the MAGA-Republican Party are using their power to inflict damage to American democracy itself that may prove exceedingly difficult if not impossible to undo. The ongoing purge of federal agencies, Trump’s impoundment of Congressionally-approved funds, and unprecedented rescissions, are but three examples of this.
These are not normal times – and Trump’s "marching orders" to state governments to seize power through not just extreme gerrymanders but also other means is unprecedented and deeply dangerous.
PS. I hear what you are saying, but Trump and MAGA politicians are doing far more than just "setting parts of the building on fire!" In recent negotiations, Senate Minority Leader Schumer couldn’t even get the White House to release Congressionally-approved funds. Obviously that should have been an easy bipartisan low-picked fruit.
The quorum-breaking tactic is now in use, as of this weekend.
The Texas Tribune has an excellent article summarizing the history, which is that as a practical matter quorum-breaking in Texas has never ultimately prevailed.
Let me say as a scientist whose funding and career are at risk, as a child of immigrants whose citizenship is in question, and as someone who has worked to make democracy operate better in a dozen ways that you cannot imagine, that you are totally clueless.
I'm going to let your foolish comment stand, but only because you evoked a more rational response from Drew Weiss.
I like strong language and have no problem calling out fucking assholes when they pop up but, Sam Wang is hardly any kind of asshole, fucking or otherwise. I think he's wrong here. Not in his analysis which is excellent and persuasive, but in his conclusions about how to respond. I'm convinced that there are only a few seats at stake in 2026 and that there the Republican gerrymandering spree has pretty much gone as far and done as much damage as it can reasonably go. That said, this is not the time for measured responses. This is the time to finally stand up to the GOP and start playing the game by the rules they have imposed. The same can be said for the Senate, where the democrats spent their time in control being respectful of tradition as Mitch McConnell and now John Thune manipulate and ignore those traditions. Its a matter of standing up to bullies and thugs by using the weapons that they have introduced.
Very informative article (I am a late comer to this forum). It seems negligent to not take steps to fight against the re-districting of Texas with the tools that are currently available. But to avoid sinking too far into a moral abyss should we not also be pushing for a constitutional amendment or at least a federal law against gerrymandering? The devil is always in the details. Odds are against any constitutional amendment and I am not aware of a mutually agreeable, readily understandable statistical method to confirm gerrymandering (see J D Vance’s comments on California). But will there be a better time to start such a movement than now when the evils of gerrymandering are so much in the national limelight?
I’ve been thinking about whether there’s a viable response that could instead push us toward de-escalation and fairer representation — one that is both principled and pragmatic.
In my view, any effective response should meet a few criteria:
It must be doable in states under Democratic control, without requiring federal legislation (since congressional action is unlikely due to the filibuster and republican control of congress).
It must be implementable before the next midterms, given the potential risks of unchecked redistricting later in a second Trump term.
It should reinforce — not undermine — nonpartisan redistricting principles, discourage mid-decade gerrymandering, and avoid further radicalization on the left.
And it should still allow Democrats to defend the integrity of the system without unilaterally disarming.
This leads me to wonder whether states with independent redistricting commissions could evolve toward a nationally principled model — one that promotes fairness across the entire country rather than just within individual states. These commissions currently aim for in-state balance, but perhaps their mandates could be expanded or reinterpreted to account for national representational fairness.
Of course, legal and statistical experts would need to define what “national fairness” means in practice, but my understanding is that there are established metrics and tools that could guide such an effort.
As both a Democrat and an American, I believe this approach offers a stronger moral and strategic foundation than retaliatory gerrymandering. Here's why:
It upholds the core democratic principle that voters should choose their representatives — not the other way around. That commitment builds long-term trust in our institutions.
It doesn't rely on one-party state control and could be advanced in purple or even red states with ballot initiatives or referenda.
It models principled restraint, not passivity. This wouldn't be surrender — it would establish a framework to respond proportionately to abuses like mid-decade gerrymandering, reinforcing that fairness is a governing principle, not a partisan tactic. For example, if Texas Republicans created five additional GOP-leaning seats through a special session, states with fair-map commissions could respond by adjusting five seats elsewhere — but no more. The goal isn’t to escalate, but to neutralize unfair advantages in a measured way. And if enough states adopted this approach, it could help restore a national balance — creating a system where Texas and Florida Democrats, as well as California and New York Republicans, have a meaningful chance at representation.
I blame the “good government” orgs for being shortsighted in their advocacy for these commissions without consideration of interstate conflicts like this (hence the “unilateral disarmament”), just as much as I blame Democrats for being so late to the nonpartisan redistricting game when they once had far more control of state governments prior to 1994.
This is needed because this country is so stupid to not have adopted a national commission to draw congressional maps (compared to Australia which does).
I’m merely surprised that this is how Democrats step away from unilateral disarmament on their values.
I really appreciate your work and this information. It validates my gut reaction to retaliatory gerrymandering. I agree with what you said below about partisan Democrats. Republicans plan for Democrats running around like chickens with their heads cut off and then shooting themselves in the foot.
I hope your data breaks through. At this point, I have a lot more faith in Texas Democrats than National Democrats to understand the math.
From a resource allocation standpoint, it might make sense for Texas Democrats to flee the state and prevent a quorum. There's a fine of $500/day/member. Honestly, Democrats would probably get more bang for their buck by paying that fine, rather than all this panic.
Fascinating analysis! You write: "The Texas gerrymander is only likely to yield 3 additional seats. Ohio will only add 2 or 3 seats. These offenses are manageable."
As I understand it, the gerrymander of North Carolina was sufficient to give Republicans control of the House after the 2024 elections. Perhaps you can confirm or point out that I am wrong?
In my opinion, neither Democrats nor America can afford to insist on "principles" if the consequence is ceding power, perhaps for years or decades to come. What Trump and today’s MAGA Republican Party are doing with their power is just too heinous and damaging! Moreover, they are continuing to increase their power, including filling federal courts with highly-partisan and often-unqualified judges that are going to decide legal challenges. We are, tragically, living in a time when the Roberts–Alito led court seems willing to find that the Constitution itself is "unconstitutional"!
It is incredible how dense partisan Democrats can be when they are in a panic.
I understand the emotion, but really, stop and think about whether you want to set parts of the building on fire that do not help. All-out warfare *will not actually help.*
As a direct answer: I have written about this before. Any gerrymander that produced 3 or more seats could be said to be determinative of current House control. That would include North Carolina, Texas, and Florida, as well the combination of UT+TN+IN.
However, it would be hypocritical to ignore similar offenses by Democrats, such as Illinois, NV+OR+MD, and the attempted gerrymander in New York state.
"I understand the emotion, but really, stop and think about whether you want to set parts of the building on fire that do not help. All-out warfare *will not actually help.*"
This is one of the arguments that needs to be had. I'll stop for a second on your use of "all out warfare" and set that aside as a straw man.
The question to me about decennial redistricting and other norms we value is not about tit for tat, it's about creating consequences and deterrence.
Right now, no elected Republican I am aware of is consistently sticking up to Trump against the most egregiously unconstitutional acts I've ever seen, likely in the history of the country. Some are not dong anything at all, others are actually facilitating.
On the micro - What if him pushing too hard on Texas means Illinois Republicans are worried about the consequence of losing their seats? - Maybe they speak up and call a halt to the whole thing.
On the macro - if every response is proportional to the offense - only the same number of seats in return - then what's the risk for Republicans? It's only that their misdeeds will amount to a wash, and only if they can't use other constitutional transgressions to head that response off the pass the next time around - more states, more seats or using whatever advantages they have (overtly partisan State Supreme Courts for example) to override state legislatures.
But if they know their aggression will have consequences - if they take a few seats and even more of their Members lose theirs - I hope they will have the motivation to sit down together and have a conversation about how none of us want to be in this precarious position again and that some of the norms we took for granted for centuries need to be made into easily enforceable rules.
I hope that's not "dense" or full of "panic" (though I am really freaked out about where this might be going.)
IMHO, the core problem is that the Roberts Supreme Court openly decided to allow egregious political gerrymanders. SCOTUS had the opportunity to put a stop to all this! As I recall, you yourself worked hard to prevent that.
That said, a key question is: what are the respective parties using their power to achieve?
Trump and the MAGA-Republican Party are using their power to inflict damage to American democracy itself that may prove exceedingly difficult if not impossible to undo. The ongoing purge of federal agencies, Trump’s impoundment of Congressionally-approved funds, and unprecedented rescissions, are but three examples of this.
These are not normal times – and Trump’s "marching orders" to state governments to seize power through not just extreme gerrymanders but also other means is unprecedented and deeply dangerous.
PS. I hear what you are saying, but Trump and MAGA politicians are doing far more than just "setting parts of the building on fire!" In recent negotiations, Senate Minority Leader Schumer couldn’t even get the White House to release Congressionally-approved funds. Obviously that should have been an easy bipartisan low-picked fruit.
National attention: yes.
Millions of dollars in support: no, but.
Tribune article addresses both of these topics, and also why there is more involved for the walk-out legislators than monetary concerns.
The quorum-breaking tactic is now in use, as of this weekend.
The Texas Tribune has an excellent article summarizing the history, which is that as a practical matter quorum-breaking in Texas has never ultimately prevailed.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/03/texas-quorum-breaks-history/
Have they ever had a walkout with national attention and millions of dollars in potential support?
Thank you for posting this informative article.
Wow, Jim.
Let me say as a scientist whose funding and career are at risk, as a child of immigrants whose citizenship is in question, and as someone who has worked to make democracy operate better in a dozen ways that you cannot imagine, that you are totally clueless.
I'm going to let your foolish comment stand, but only because you evoked a more rational response from Drew Weiss.
I like strong language and have no problem calling out fucking assholes when they pop up but, Sam Wang is hardly any kind of asshole, fucking or otherwise. I think he's wrong here. Not in his analysis which is excellent and persuasive, but in his conclusions about how to respond. I'm convinced that there are only a few seats at stake in 2026 and that there the Republican gerrymandering spree has pretty much gone as far and done as much damage as it can reasonably go. That said, this is not the time for measured responses. This is the time to finally stand up to the GOP and start playing the game by the rules they have imposed. The same can be said for the Senate, where the democrats spent their time in control being respectful of tradition as Mitch McConnell and now John Thune manipulate and ignore those traditions. Its a matter of standing up to bullies and thugs by using the weapons that they have introduced.
Thank you.
Very informative article (I am a late comer to this forum). It seems negligent to not take steps to fight against the re-districting of Texas with the tools that are currently available. But to avoid sinking too far into a moral abyss should we not also be pushing for a constitutional amendment or at least a federal law against gerrymandering? The devil is always in the details. Odds are against any constitutional amendment and I am not aware of a mutually agreeable, readily understandable statistical method to confirm gerrymandering (see J D Vance’s comments on California). But will there be a better time to start such a movement than now when the evils of gerrymandering are so much in the national limelight?
I’ve been thinking about whether there’s a viable response that could instead push us toward de-escalation and fairer representation — one that is both principled and pragmatic.
In my view, any effective response should meet a few criteria:
It must be doable in states under Democratic control, without requiring federal legislation (since congressional action is unlikely due to the filibuster and republican control of congress).
It must be implementable before the next midterms, given the potential risks of unchecked redistricting later in a second Trump term.
It should reinforce — not undermine — nonpartisan redistricting principles, discourage mid-decade gerrymandering, and avoid further radicalization on the left.
And it should still allow Democrats to defend the integrity of the system without unilaterally disarming.
This leads me to wonder whether states with independent redistricting commissions could evolve toward a nationally principled model — one that promotes fairness across the entire country rather than just within individual states. These commissions currently aim for in-state balance, but perhaps their mandates could be expanded or reinterpreted to account for national representational fairness.
Of course, legal and statistical experts would need to define what “national fairness” means in practice, but my understanding is that there are established metrics and tools that could guide such an effort.
As both a Democrat and an American, I believe this approach offers a stronger moral and strategic foundation than retaliatory gerrymandering. Here's why:
It upholds the core democratic principle that voters should choose their representatives — not the other way around. That commitment builds long-term trust in our institutions.
It doesn't rely on one-party state control and could be advanced in purple or even red states with ballot initiatives or referenda.
It models principled restraint, not passivity. This wouldn't be surrender — it would establish a framework to respond proportionately to abuses like mid-decade gerrymandering, reinforcing that fairness is a governing principle, not a partisan tactic. For example, if Texas Republicans created five additional GOP-leaning seats through a special session, states with fair-map commissions could respond by adjusting five seats elsewhere — but no more. The goal isn’t to escalate, but to neutralize unfair advantages in a measured way. And if enough states adopted this approach, it could help restore a national balance — creating a system where Texas and Florida Democrats, as well as California and New York Republicans, have a meaningful chance at representation.
I blame the “good government” orgs for being shortsighted in their advocacy for these commissions without consideration of interstate conflicts like this (hence the “unilateral disarmament”), just as much as I blame Democrats for being so late to the nonpartisan redistricting game when they once had far more control of state governments prior to 1994.
My proposal( http://blackgaynerd.com/2025/07/18/california-and-other-blue-states-can-re-arm-themselves-through-multilateral-redistricting/ ) would suspend the congressional map approved by the typical CRDC until enough states have adopted such commissions themselves, akin to the NPVIC.
This is needed because this country is so stupid to not have adopted a national commission to draw congressional maps (compared to Australia which does).
I’m merely surprised that this is how Democrats step away from unilateral disarmament on their values.