Two of the nation's most influential governors are now at the center of a high-stakes redistricting battle that could define control of the U.S. House for the next decade.
What to Know:
- Texas Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to redraw the state’s congressional maps, aiming to secure five additional Republican seats before the 2026 midterms.
- Donald Trump endorsed the plan, calling Texas a Republican stronghold and urging lawmakers to act quickly to block any future Democratic gains.
- California Governor Gavin Newsom floated the idea of eliminating his state’s independent redistricting commission, potentially allowing the Democratic supermajority to redraw maps in response.
- Democrats are divided over whether to match Republican tactics or maintain California’s reform-based process, with some warning that retaliatory redistricting could backfire legally and politically.
- Nationwide, redistricting norms are breaking down, with states like Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina also exploring or enacting mid-decade changes outside the traditional census cycle.
What began as a slow-burning structural shift has ignited into a full-blown partisan firestorm. Following pressure from President Donald Trump, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has called a special session to redraw the state's congressional maps mid-decade. This move echoes early 2000s gerrymandering tactics but with a heightened sense of urgency for 2025. His stated goal? Lock in five additional Republican House seats before the 2026 midterms.
Screenshot of Governor Gavin Newsom speaking on Pod Save America
California’s Gavin Newsom isn’t letting the moment pass quietly. During an appearance on Pod Save America, the Democratic governor suggested a drastic measure: eliminating California's respected independent redistricting commission in a responsive action. The result? A potential unraveling of decades-old norms, escalating what many now call a redistricting arms race between red and blue America.
Trump Pushes Redistricting to the Edge in Texas
More than just a policy maneuver, Abbott's special session is a calculated move to solidify Republican power by strategically manipulating maps. With Republicans currently holding 25 of Texas’ 38 U.S. House seats, and one Democratic-held seat vacant, Trump’s operatives believe they can stretch that advantage by surgically drawing new boundaries. This initiative aims to strengthen their slim House majority, which they worry might crumble due to an unpredictable 2026 electorate.
Trump made his position clear on Truth Social, calling Texas a model for Republican dominance. He boasted about winning by 1.5 million votes, carrying all the border counties, and dismissed talk of Texas turning blue as a Democrat lie. He urged Republican lawmakers to take action and redraw the maps, positioning Texas as the starting point for a broader redistricting push.
Post by President Trump on Truth Social
Legislatively, Texas can do this. The Lone Star State is among the 33 states where partisan control of the legislature gives the majority the power to redraw congressional maps at will, outside the decennial census cycle, provided they can justify the need and dodge legal landmines.
The High Stakes of Holding the Line in California
California Democrats hold supermajorities in both legislative chambers but no longer control redistricting. That authority belongs to the 14-member Citizens Redistricting Commission, established by Proposition 20 in 2010 to remove partisan influence from the map-drawing process.
Governor Gavin Newsom recently pointed out that the state constitution is silent on redistricting between census cycles, suggesting the legislature could act without a constitutional amendment. Legal experts disagree, warning that such a move could violate state law and face court challenges.
Image generated by DALL-E
However, Democrats have the numbers to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Options include repealing Proposition 20, creating a temporary exception, or tying changes to similar actions in other states. The earliest possible vote would be in June 2026, but lawmakers are exploring faster options through special elections or emergency measures.
Democrats Clash Over Ethics and Electoral Strategy
California Democrats are divided over whether to respond to Republican redistricting efforts with similar tactics. State Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire supports taking action, calling it a necessary defense of democratic values. Others, like Assembly member Alex Lee, chair of the Progressive Caucus, argue that retaliating undermines the very principles Democrats claim to uphold.
This internal debate reflects a century of redistricting battles in California. Since 1926, voters have considered redistricting reforms more than 20 times. Key milestones include the failure of Prop 77 in 2005 and the success of Prop 11 and Prop 20 in 2008 and 2010, which created and expanded the independent redistricting commission. Critics warn that rolling back these reforms in response to partisan pressure could erase decades of progress in a single move.
Redistricting as a Weapon
The battles unfolding in Texas and California are part of a larger national shift. Traditional redistricting norms are unraveling across multiple states. In Ohio, Republicans are working to transform a 10-5 congressional map into a 13-2 advantage. In Florida, talk of mid-decade map changes is circulating as Trump-aligned strategists seek to gain more seats. North Carolina has seen redistricting control swing back and forth due to ongoing court battles, reflecting how unstable the process has become.
For decades, redistricting followed an unofficial understanding. Both parties engaged in gerrymandering when they had the chance but largely respected the once-per-decade timeline tied to the census. That approach no longer holds. Redistricting has become a continuous power struggle, where legal loopholes and court rulings are used to redraw maps whenever politically convenient.
What Happens Now Will Shape the Next Decade
The House of Representatives is narrowly divided. As of July 2025, Republicans hold a slim majority, and Politico reports that Democrats are working to regain control in key battleground states like Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. If Texas redraws its maps and adds five more Republican-leaning districts, that majority could become much harder to overcome.
California, with 52 House seats, has the potential to shift the balance. A targeted Democratic gerrymander could offset some of the losses elsewhere. But doing so would mean moving away from reform-driven redistricting and embracing the same tactics Democrats have long criticized. This debate goes beyond district lines. It reflects a larger shift in how political power is pursued and protected. Regardless of public reaction or legal outcomes, the message is clear: redistricting has become a permanent contest, not a once-in-a-decade event.
Wrap Up
Texas made the first move, and California now stands at a critical juncture. With redistricting no longer confined to census years, the decision before California is not just whether to redraw maps, but whether to fundamentally alter its approach to political reform.
Governor Newsom has hinted that the legislature may have more authority than previously assumed, potentially overriding the independent redistricting commission created by voters through Proposition 20. This interpretation has sparked legal and political debate, with critics warning it could undermine decades of reform aimed at removing partisanship from the redistricting process.
The implications go far beyond California. If Democrats choose to respond to Republican-led redistricting moves with similar tactics, they risk weakening their longstanding arguments for independent processes and procedural fairness. On the other hand, if they choose not to act, they may cede long-term congressional power to their opponents.
This moment reveals a broader shift in how political power is contested in the United States. Redistricting is no longer a decennial routine governed by tradition and rules. It has become a continuous battle, shaped by legal ambiguity, strategic calculation, and shifting public expectations. How California responds could set the tone for how both parties approach political mapmaking for years to come.
