Elliott, you say: "In terms of caveats, note that we are not accounting for any changes in maps that may come if the Supreme Court strikes down the section of the Voting Rights Act that mandates majority-minority districts in some states. If that happens, we could see a deluge of Democratic seats due to map redrawing all over the South, including seats like MO-01 and TN-09." Do you mean a deluge of Republican seats?
It's still possible that court-ordered redistricting in Utah and perhaps Wisconsin could add a handful of Dem seats before 2026. Also, there's a lot of discussion in Maryland about drawing out Andy Harris, though there are seemingly formidable legal and practical challenges.
Florida is a weird one. I've seen credible estimates of anywhere from two to six additional GOP seats. You would *think* that the FL courts wouldn't allow a more ambitious gerrymander since the parts of the Fair District Amendments they haven't struck down prohibit it. And yet... the existing Florida map is already a very obvious partisan gerrymander...
We keep going in the wrong direction, away from processes that can elect people that will serve the people's will. 2026 looks to be the most disproportionate campaign spending in a midterm ever. We must find a way to turn the tide; is it (free, universal for citizens) Voter ID?
(I understand Elliot's argument that it probably only hurts them if control of the House is long-since decided, like Dems winning overall popular vote by 10 -- that's not what I'm referring to.)
Great article. We need to solve this. There’s many ways to do it- from citizens’ commissions, to mathematical limits.
I’m very surprised that you suggest mid-decade redistricting isn’t illegal. Typically state constitutions lack language granting the legislature such authority- and courts have interpreted that as it not being permitted. Plus, using outdated census data would very often result in collateral legal issues, like equal protection claims.
Assuming SCOTUS *does* nuke the remaining protections of the VRA in the summer of 2026, should we expect new maps for the midterms? That seems like a short turnaround...
They are hearing arguments in that case in October, meaning a ruling could come before the filing deadlines in some of the relevant states. But yes it is true that the timeline would be tight. Worth noting that such a ruling would also in theory open up the possibility of clean-sweep Dem maps in NY and Illinois.
If SCOTUS decides to gut the VRA, the liberal justices will likely dissent. I do not see how the liberal justices would be willing to complete their dissenting opinion with enough time for numerous more red states to gerrymander their map before the 2026 election. I can't understand why folks think the liberal justices would be willing to finish their dissent where there's time for red states to gerrymander their map before 2016.
The other thing you / we cannot predict is the backlash from Independent voters and normally-to-busy-to-vote voters. Take a look at what happened last time Georgia tried to rig an election. The lines to vote lasted for up to six hours in some places.
> Over the long term, groups of voters that are more geographically dispersed end up winning more seats than they are entitled to based on their share of the vote
This is only true in a two-party system (or two parties atop a de jure multiparty system like the US). If e.g. Libertarians could concentrate their 709k votes in a couple of geographical districts, they'd have one or two seats.
See also parties overrepresented in FPTP:
- Dixiecrats
- Bloc Québéquois, who served as HM's Loyal Opposition a couple of times despite only competing in one province
In 1954, Congress codified earlier census acts and all other statutes authorizing the decennial census as Title 13, U.S. Code.
Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that an apportionment of representatives among the states must be carried out every 10 years. Therefore, apportionment is the original legal purpose of the decennial census, as intended by our Nation's Founders. Apportionment is the process of dividing the 435 memberships, or seats, in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states, based on the state population counts that result from each decennial census.
100% on this. I took the position that California should not respond with even more partisan cheating, which I think hurts more than helps. That view has not been very popular so far with the people I know. Glad to see support for the very basic point that gerrymandering is cheating. Here's my opposition to gerrymandering California ->
Good analysis. If the SCOTUS does say that you can’t create majority minority districts, would that be good or bad for Democrats? My first thought would that it would be bad for dems because politicians in the South could dilute majority black districts.
That you can't create them or that you don't have to?
Presumably these days gerrymandering is precise enough that you can move a few voters around to mitigate whatever racial features the Court decides are a no-no. Although as bad as things are I don't think the Court has yet said that every district has to have a white majority.
“ In terms of caveats, note that we are not accounting for any changes in maps that may come if the Supreme Court strikes down the section of the Voting Rights Act that mandates majority-minority districts in some states. If that happens, we could see a deluge of Democratic seats due to map redrawing all over the South, including seats like MO-01 and TN-09. "All bets are off" if that happens, I'm told.”
@G. Elliot Morris can you please explain this a little if possible?
Very interesting analysis. And the midterms will have lower turnout and a different set of voters, which may favor Democrats.
From another perspective, Trump's popularity is likely to be even lower, given that economic conditions probably will be worse. If that unpopularity still transfers to loss of House seats, Dems may survive the extreme gerrymandering. Gallup's average (as of 2018) was a loss of 37 seats for unpopular Presidents. In 2018, Republicans lost 40 House seats with Trump's popularity at 44% (UCSB).
Elliott, you say: "In terms of caveats, note that we are not accounting for any changes in maps that may come if the Supreme Court strikes down the section of the Voting Rights Act that mandates majority-minority districts in some states. If that happens, we could see a deluge of Democratic seats due to map redrawing all over the South, including seats like MO-01 and TN-09." Do you mean a deluge of Republican seats?
It's still possible that court-ordered redistricting in Utah and perhaps Wisconsin could add a handful of Dem seats before 2026. Also, there's a lot of discussion in Maryland about drawing out Andy Harris, though there are seemingly formidable legal and practical challenges.
Florida is a weird one. I've seen credible estimates of anywhere from two to six additional GOP seats. You would *think* that the FL courts wouldn't allow a more ambitious gerrymander since the parts of the Fair District Amendments they haven't struck down prohibit it. And yet... the existing Florida map is already a very obvious partisan gerrymander...
What if New York and Illinois gerrymander too?
What if it finally comes out that Trump, with Musk and Putin, rigged 2024?
What if UN peacekeeping forces monitor the 2026 elections?
Etc….
No. Midterms go against the President’s party. This is spitting into the wind.
We keep going in the wrong direction, away from processes that can elect people that will serve the people's will. 2026 looks to be the most disproportionate campaign spending in a midterm ever. We must find a way to turn the tide; is it (free, universal for citizens) Voter ID?
Hoo boy, here's a doozy. Seems Texas might have made a lot more competitive seats, which I'd been told was somehow not a fear for them.
https://www.rawstory.com/texas-redistricting-2673907383/#
(I understand Elliot's argument that it probably only hurts them if control of the House is long-since decided, like Dems winning overall popular vote by 10 -- that's not what I'm referring to.)
Great article. We need to solve this. There’s many ways to do it- from citizens’ commissions, to mathematical limits.
I’m very surprised that you suggest mid-decade redistricting isn’t illegal. Typically state constitutions lack language granting the legislature such authority- and courts have interpreted that as it not being permitted. Plus, using outdated census data would very often result in collateral legal issues, like equal protection claims.
I've really appreciated your analysis on this.
Assuming SCOTUS *does* nuke the remaining protections of the VRA in the summer of 2026, should we expect new maps for the midterms? That seems like a short turnaround...
They are hearing arguments in that case in October, meaning a ruling could come before the filing deadlines in some of the relevant states. But yes it is true that the timeline would be tight. Worth noting that such a ruling would also in theory open up the possibility of clean-sweep Dem maps in NY and Illinois.
If SCOTUS decides to gut the VRA, the liberal justices will likely dissent. I do not see how the liberal justices would be willing to complete their dissenting opinion with enough time for numerous more red states to gerrymander their map before the 2026 election. I can't understand why folks think the liberal justices would be willing to finish their dissent where there's time for red states to gerrymander their map before 2016.
The other thing you / we cannot predict is the backlash from Independent voters and normally-to-busy-to-vote voters. Take a look at what happened last time Georgia tried to rig an election. The lines to vote lasted for up to six hours in some places.
And. Nobody. Left.
Thanks for this. I'm also curious how the "overperformance" of Democrats in some recent special elections may factor in. Thank you!
> Over the long term, groups of voters that are more geographically dispersed end up winning more seats than they are entitled to based on their share of the vote
This is only true in a two-party system (or two parties atop a de jure multiparty system like the US). If e.g. Libertarians could concentrate their 709k votes in a couple of geographical districts, they'd have one or two seats.
See also parties overrepresented in FPTP:
- Dixiecrats
- Bloc Québéquois, who served as HM's Loyal Opposition a couple of times despite only competing in one province
- Scottish National Party
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/census-constitution.html#:~:text=Article%20I%2C%20Section%202%20of,intended%20by%20our%20Nation's%20Founders.
In 1954, Congress codified earlier census acts and all other statutes authorizing the decennial census as Title 13, U.S. Code.
Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that an apportionment of representatives among the states must be carried out every 10 years. Therefore, apportionment is the original legal purpose of the decennial census, as intended by our Nation's Founders. Apportionment is the process of dividing the 435 memberships, or seats, in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states, based on the state population counts that result from each decennial census.
100% on this. I took the position that California should not respond with even more partisan cheating, which I think hurts more than helps. That view has not been very popular so far with the people I know. Glad to see support for the very basic point that gerrymandering is cheating. Here's my opposition to gerrymandering California ->
https://www.activevoice.us/p/gerrymandering-california-is-not
Why aren’t you counting redistricting in blue states other than California?
Tit for tat. (So to speak) If Indiana, then Illinois, no matter how ridiculous. If some other states, then New York.
Good analysis. If the SCOTUS does say that you can’t create majority minority districts, would that be good or bad for Democrats? My first thought would that it would be bad for dems because politicians in the South could dilute majority black districts.
That you can't create them or that you don't have to?
Presumably these days gerrymandering is precise enough that you can move a few voters around to mitigate whatever racial features the Court decides are a no-no. Although as bad as things are I don't think the Court has yet said that every district has to have a white majority.
This was the section in the article:
“ In terms of caveats, note that we are not accounting for any changes in maps that may come if the Supreme Court strikes down the section of the Voting Rights Act that mandates majority-minority districts in some states. If that happens, we could see a deluge of Democratic seats due to map redrawing all over the South, including seats like MO-01 and TN-09. "All bets are off" if that happens, I'm told.”
@G. Elliot Morris can you please explain this a little if possible?
Very interesting analysis. And the midterms will have lower turnout and a different set of voters, which may favor Democrats.
From another perspective, Trump's popularity is likely to be even lower, given that economic conditions probably will be worse. If that unpopularity still transfers to loss of House seats, Dems may survive the extreme gerrymandering. Gallup's average (as of 2018) was a loss of 37 seats for unpopular Presidents. In 2018, Republicans lost 40 House seats with Trump's popularity at 44% (UCSB).