Also this week: Demographic math favors Mamdani in New York; Election denier appointed head of election integrity at Homeland Security; Forecasting population and Electoral Vote change; + more
I agree. Many of us are descended from people who arrived at different times. It would be hard to find anyone descended solely from people who arrived three to four hundred years ago, and the Native Americans were here long before then.
I realize that my position is in the minority of Democrats, but I still think gerrymandering in California is a poor strategy and voters should vote it down in November.
1) California Democrats will probably beat some Republican House members in ‘26 anyway.
2) as shown above gerrymandering is unpopular with independents so pursuing it might have some negative impact on many midterm races
3) the more partisan an issue becomes, the more both sides do it, the more likely voters become cynical and disengaged. We need more people paying attention and engaged.
As i understand it, the California gerrymander will only go into effect, if voted into law, if the Texas gerrymander stands. There is a court challenge to the Texas gerrymander, filed by Mark Elias of Democracy Docket within six hours of the Texas gerrymander becoming law. The courts, however, are slow, and the Supreme Court, which should shut down mid-cycle re-districting, may not if the case actually gets to them..
The key difference: in Texas the maps are “forever”. In California, the voters will decide to use the maps to counteract Texas until 2030. In Texas: voters have no voice. In California: voters have a voice and it goes back to independent redistricting in 2030.
This is a little self-centered because it's my take, but I'd be interested in seeing if there's a difference in support between "I want my state to gerrymander to counteract other states doing it" vs "I think there should be a national gerrymandering ban" or what have you. I honestly think just as a matter of politics Dems should be pairing any state-level gerrymandering moves with calls to ban it at a national level -- "we'll be happy to undo this when Texas isn't allowed to do it either" -- as a way to thread the needle.
(As with a lot of issues that have broad support and would help lower existential political conflict immensely, it is wild that Congress could end gerrymandering at any time and simply doesn't!)
It's inaccurate to say "Congress" won't act because Democrats have introduced many bills to end gerrymandering like the Redistricting Reform Act of 2024 (https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/u-s-senate-democrats-introduce-sweeping-national-redistricting-bill/) - as with everything else, the problem is REPUBLICANS will either block these bills from coming to the floor (when they are in the majority) or filibuster then when they do (when they're in the minority).
One way to get around Republican obstruction in Congress is to create a voluntary "interstate compact" like National Popular Vote (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/) , in which the compact states would act in unison when an agreed upon goal is met.
For NPV, the goal is a majority of Electoral College votes - then all the compact states would appoint their Electors for the winner of the National Popular Vote, which would make them the President.
It has been enacted into law by 17 blue states and DC with 209 electoral votes. It needs an additional 61 electoral votes to go into effect.
This strategy bypasses Congress because Republicans will never abolish the Electoral College. But this just shifts the locus of GOP obstruction from Congress to red states, where they won't allow a vote on NPV.
Still, there could be a similar grassroots movement to abolish gerrymanders through an interstate compact that goes into effect when (say) the 4 largest states (CA/TX/FL/NY) switch to independent redistricting.
CA and NY already have it, but may change it until 2030. If there was a groundswell of support for an interstate compact, it could put some pressure on TX and FL to follow suit. Of course, the GOP in TX/FL would fight to the death against it.
I'm a little worried about these interstate compacts, as I expect the Republicans will challenge them in the courts, just as they did with their Citizens United lawsuit that destroyed bipartisan campaign financing reform. BTW, Mitch McConnell helped lead the fight to overthrow it.
I agree. Senator Todd Young of Indiana, who voted for the horrible Trump cabinet picks and for the big ugly bill gets a B. His newsletters and email responses to my email like to portray him as working on bipartisan legislation, most of which has no chance of passing. But, hey, it beats discussing in those newsletters his undercutting of solar power, public broadcasting, healthcare, small businesses, etc.
Be skeptical of people who blame only urban policy for changes in city dwelling. Cities did regularly clear ethnic neighborhoods for public work projects, but those residents often ended up elsewhere in the city. Racial housing covenants, redlining, and where FHA housing was created and who it was available to are key.
Simply the best.
The Vance thing just irritates me. Even though my mom descends from people
who were in eight different colonies she is no more American than my dad whose family came from Italy during the Great Migration.
I agree. Many of us are descended from people who arrived at different times. It would be hard to find anyone descended solely from people who arrived three to four hundred years ago, and the Native Americans were here long before then.
You said the Dems were +8 but today’s graph shows +3.3? Which is it?
Thank you.
I realize that my position is in the minority of Democrats, but I still think gerrymandering in California is a poor strategy and voters should vote it down in November.
1) California Democrats will probably beat some Republican House members in ‘26 anyway.
2) as shown above gerrymandering is unpopular with independents so pursuing it might have some negative impact on many midterm races
3) the more partisan an issue becomes, the more both sides do it, the more likely voters become cynical and disengaged. We need more people paying attention and engaged.
As i understand it, the California gerrymander will only go into effect, if voted into law, if the Texas gerrymander stands. There is a court challenge to the Texas gerrymander, filed by Mark Elias of Democracy Docket within six hours of the Texas gerrymander becoming law. The courts, however, are slow, and the Supreme Court, which should shut down mid-cycle re-districting, may not if the case actually gets to them..
Given that the courts haven’t ruled on the previous Texas gerrymander yet, I will be shocked if the new maps are stopped before the midterms.
The key difference: in Texas the maps are “forever”. In California, the voters will decide to use the maps to counteract Texas until 2030. In Texas: voters have no voice. In California: voters have a voice and it goes back to independent redistricting in 2030.
Useful clarification.
Your column and poll contents are fabulous! Your site is the most informative of them all. Thank you. I will share some results with serious others!
This is a little self-centered because it's my take, but I'd be interested in seeing if there's a difference in support between "I want my state to gerrymander to counteract other states doing it" vs "I think there should be a national gerrymandering ban" or what have you. I honestly think just as a matter of politics Dems should be pairing any state-level gerrymandering moves with calls to ban it at a national level -- "we'll be happy to undo this when Texas isn't allowed to do it either" -- as a way to thread the needle.
(As with a lot of issues that have broad support and would help lower existential political conflict immensely, it is wild that Congress could end gerrymandering at any time and simply doesn't!)
It's inaccurate to say "Congress" won't act because Democrats have introduced many bills to end gerrymandering like the Redistricting Reform Act of 2024 (https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/u-s-senate-democrats-introduce-sweeping-national-redistricting-bill/) - as with everything else, the problem is REPUBLICANS will either block these bills from coming to the floor (when they are in the majority) or filibuster then when they do (when they're in the minority).
One way to get around Republican obstruction in Congress is to create a voluntary "interstate compact" like National Popular Vote (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/) , in which the compact states would act in unison when an agreed upon goal is met.
For NPV, the goal is a majority of Electoral College votes - then all the compact states would appoint their Electors for the winner of the National Popular Vote, which would make them the President.
It has been enacted into law by 17 blue states and DC with 209 electoral votes. It needs an additional 61 electoral votes to go into effect.
This strategy bypasses Congress because Republicans will never abolish the Electoral College. But this just shifts the locus of GOP obstruction from Congress to red states, where they won't allow a vote on NPV.
Still, there could be a similar grassroots movement to abolish gerrymanders through an interstate compact that goes into effect when (say) the 4 largest states (CA/TX/FL/NY) switch to independent redistricting.
CA and NY already have it, but may change it until 2030. If there was a groundswell of support for an interstate compact, it could put some pressure on TX and FL to follow suit. Of course, the GOP in TX/FL would fight to the death against it.
I'm a little worried about these interstate compacts, as I expect the Republicans will challenge them in the courts, just as they did with their Citizens United lawsuit that destroyed bipartisan campaign financing reform. BTW, Mitch McConnell helped lead the fight to overthrow it.
Can pluralities be overwhelming?
Looks like the images for today’s post didn’t upload, I blame Amtrak wifi. All fixed now! Thanks for reading!
So sorry, but I can’t buy some of Bridgegrades results. Ted Cruz gets a B! Nope, nope, and NFW!
I agree. Senator Todd Young of Indiana, who voted for the horrible Trump cabinet picks and for the big ugly bill gets a B. His newsletters and email responses to my email like to portray him as working on bipartisan legislation, most of which has no chance of passing. But, hey, it beats discussing in those newsletters his undercutting of solar power, public broadcasting, healthcare, small businesses, etc.
Be skeptical of people who blame only urban policy for changes in city dwelling. Cities did regularly clear ethnic neighborhoods for public work projects, but those residents often ended up elsewhere in the city. Racial housing covenants, redlining, and where FHA housing was created and who it was available to are key.
https://mappingdecline.lib.uiowa.edu/map/
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23152/st-louis/population
The link for the St Louis-Hiroshima graph produces the Bridge rating instead