164
submitted 6 hours ago by Stamau123@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

SACRAMENTO, Calif (AP) — California voters will decide in November whether to approve a redrawn congressional map designed to help Democrats win five more U.S. House seats next year, after Texas Republicans advanced their own redrawn map to pad their House majority by the same number of seats at President Donald Trump’s urging.

California lawmakers voted mostly along party lines Thursday to approve legislation calling for the special election. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has led the campaign in favor of the map, then quickly signed it — the latest step in a tit-for-tat gerrymandering battle.

“This is not something six weeks ago that I ever imagined that I’d be doing,” Newsom said at a press conference, pledging a campaign for the measure that would reach out to Democrats, Republicans and independent voters. “This is a reaction to an assault on our democracy in Texas.”

Republicans, who have filed a lawsuit and called for a federal investigation into the plan, promised to fight the measure at the ballot box as well.

California Assemblyman James Gallagher, the Republican minority leader, said Trump was “wrong” to push for new Republican seats elsewhere, contending the president was just responding to Democratic gerrymandering in other states. But he warned that Newsom’s approach, which the governor has dubbed “fight fire with fire,” was dangerous.

"You move forward fighting fire with fire and what happens?” Gallagher asked. “You burn it all down.”

Texas’ redrawn maps still need a final vote in the Republican-controlled state Senate, which advanced the plan out of a committee Thursday but did not bring the measure to the floor. The Senate was scheduled to meet again Friday.

After that, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s signature will be all that is needed to make the map official. It’s part of Trump’s effort to stave off an expected loss of the GOP’s majority in the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm elections.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] who@feddit.org 4 points 2 hours ago
[-] mercano@lemmy.world 47 points 6 hours ago

My one hope is that this eye-for-an-eye redistricting will eventually lead to a constitutional amendment to have all congressional districts drawn via some nonpartisan algorithm rather than by state politicians. Probably over optimistic of me, though.

[-] gigachad@piefed.social 2 points 2 hours ago

Not a US american so sorry if this is a stupid question, but why aren't these congressional districts the same as administrative districts?

[-] bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

How would you define an administrative district? It's likely similar I'd imagine, but not sure where your frame of reference comes from.

[-] gigachad@piefed.social 2 points 2 hours ago

Well I don't need to, they are predefined administrative units. Take the federal state of Northrhine-Westphalia in Germany as an example:

[-] frezik 1 points 2 minutes ago

In the US, after a census every 10 years, each state is allocated a number of House congressional districts based on population. The House has 435 members (not including non-voting members from territories like Puerto Rico). The number for any given state fluctuates each census, so predefined districts won't work.

One way to combat gerrymandering without a constitutional amendment is to increase the size of the House. It's set by statute and hasn't been changed since 1911.

Another is to use Iowa's redistricting method, which has appropriately boring maps: https://waynecountyelections.iowa.gov/global/maps/iowa_congressional_districts_82470.pdf

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 17 points 5 hours ago

My only qualm with that is that if you select an algorithm, it needs to be selected, which means that the people in control of that selection can decide what's non-partisan in the selection criteria.

I'm more in favor of defining properties that districts must have and then selecting a districting commission by lottery. Make it so you can't be fired for being on the commission, and pay people 20% over their wage for the time they're on the commission.

If an algorithm has an outcome that seems flagrantly incorrect, you can't subpoena it and ask about its reasoning. The courts are already geared towards handling complaints regarding how a commission handled its responsibilities.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago

My only qualm with that is that if you select an algorithm, it needs to be selected, which means that the people in control of that selection can decide what’s non-partisan in the selection criteria.

Anyone with a sibling that has had to divide something equally to share it knows how to solve this. One group chooses the algorithm and the second group chooses which side they get to on.

The first group, who have the power to introduce bias disadvantaging one side cannot benefit from it, and worse, they'd hand the power to the second group. It forces the first group to choose a method with built in equality because the second group could force the first group to take the disadvantaged side.

[-] BussyGyatt@feddit.org 5 points 4 hours ago

this seems to assume a baked-in 2 party system I would prefer not to continue to plan around

[-] ProfessorScience@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

One group chooses the algorithm and the second group chooses which side they get to on.

In practice this would require the second group to basically have a switch that switches all voters' preferences. So I don't think that's gonna work here.

[-] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Unfortunately I don't think that's how algorithm development works, not if you want to make a fair one.

[-] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 4 points 5 hours ago

It's equally likely that it will end with the US being carved into semi-official fiefdoms divided by faction as with the Guelphs and Ghibellines in medieval Italy.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 hours ago

Replace Guelphs and Ghibellines techbro A and techbro B, and yeah, sounds about right.

[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Isn't it already too late to wait until the midterms to decide this? Texas will already be electing five new Republicans to the House in November. This won't "balance the scales" for at least another two years after that.

That means Republicans will maintain their majority for Trump's entire 2nd term...and by then, they will have rewritten the entire playbook to make sure they all stay in power permanently. The only way to stop that, is to take back the House and Senate...now. Not two years from now. This November, now.

(Correction...I apparently don't know what year it is.)

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago

Isn't the mid term 2026? It's only 2025

[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 hours ago

Lol! Man, you just totally made my day. I don't know what I was thinking. Thank you. Maybe there is still hope.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 hours ago

Better to burn it all down then just let the other side burn all my shit.

[-] Shirasho@lemmings.world 4 points 5 hours ago

Maybe stop fighting with fire in the first place you twat.

[-] blitzen@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 hours ago

I’m confused. What do you think the play here is

[-] chonkyninja@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Gasoline + Styrofoam = Napalm.

[-] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

Gasoline + styOfoam = naPalm. We can all play with words but the aggressor has been planning to use it for a long time.

this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
164 points (100.0% liked)

News

31731 readers
2764 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS