The political landscape of the United States is currently gripped by a high-stakes confrontation over congressional maps, a battle unfolding between the nation's two most populous states, Texas and California. This intense struggle transcends mere partisan skirmishes; it represents a critical test of democratic norms, the interpretation of constitutional law, and the future of electoral integrity. At its core, this showdown directly implicates the delicate balance of power within the U.S. House of Representatives, where the current Republican majority stands precariously at 219-212. Any significant shift in congressional seats in either state could fundamentally alter this narrow margin, making these state-level redistricting battles pivotal to national legislative control.
This dispute also serves as a potent reflection of former President Donald Trump's assertive view of presidential power and his enduring influence over the Republican Party. His active encouragement of aggressive redistricting efforts has ignited this conflict. Beyond the immediate political maneuvering, the showdown highlights the deep-seated ideological and cultural rivalry between Texas and California, two states with starkly contrasting political visions that have long competed across various domains, from economic prowess to social policy. In this context, the redistricting fight transforms into a proxy battle for broader national influence and ideological dominance.
Texas's Bold Maneuver: A Mid-Decade Power Play
The current flashpoint in this national electoral chess match is Texas, where Republican lawmakers have unveiled a draft of the state's new congressional map. The explicit objective of this redrawing is to flip as many as five Democratic seats in the upcoming midterm elections. This aggressive move is a direct consequence of former President Trump's urging to reshape districts, aiming to bolster the Republican Party's chances of preserving its U.S. House majority.
Currently, Republicans hold a substantial advantage in Texas, controlling 25 of the state's 38 House seats, a nearly two-to-one lead. This is despite a 2024 presidential election where Donald Trump secured 56.1% of Texas ballots compared to Kamala Harris's 42.5%. The proposed map seeks to amplify this existing advantage, potentially increasing the number of Republican-held seats to 30. Analysis indicates that under these new lines, Trump would have carried each of these 30 districts by at least a 10-percentage-point margin in 2024, signaling a robust partisan advantage for the GOP.
The strategic reshaping targets Democratic U.S. House members and districts situated within the state's major metropolitan areas, including Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, alongside the historically Democratic Rio Grande Valley in South Texas. For instance, the map proposes overhauling Representative Julie Johnson's Dallas-anchored district and significantly altering four Democratic districts in the Houston area. A notable change involves Representative Al Green's 9th Congressional District, which would be redrawn to favor Republicans heavily. In the Austin area, the proposed changes could even force a primary contest between Democratic Representatives Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett.
The techniques employed in this proposed map are textbook examples of gerrymandering, specifically "packing" and "cracking". Packing involves concentrating Democratic voters into existing blue urban centers, giving them even larger margins in districts they already control. While this makes those districts overwhelmingly Democratic, it effectively "wastes" a significant number of Democratic votes that could otherwise influence outcomes in other districts. Conversely, cracking involves dispersing Republican voters from safely red districts into several currently Democratic-held districts. This dilutes Democratic strength in those areas, making the seats more competitive for Republican candidates. For example, the 18th Congressional District in Houston, a long-standing Black Democratic stronghold, would be packed with an even greater concentration of Democratic voters.
A particularly contentious aspect of the proposed map is its impact on minority voting rights. It seeks to split voters of color in Tarrant County among multiple Republican districts and significantly alters the 35th District in Central Texas, which was initially established by court order to protect the voting rights of people of color. Furthermore, the plan aims to dismantle four congressional districts that the U.S. Department of Justice previously identified as unconstitutionally combining Black and Hispanic voters. Critics argue that these changes dilute the power of minority voters, despite the map also proposing an increase in the number of white, Hispanic, and Black majority districts.
This mid-decade redraw represents a significant departure from traditional redistricting practices. While redistricting typically follows the decennial U.S. Census, Texas Republicans have initiated this rare, though legally permissible, mid-cycle redrawing of congressional districts. This unusual timing, explicitly driven by the pursuit of partisan gain, underscores the aggressive and opportunistic nature of the current power play. The Texas redistricting process adheres to the regular legislative path, requiring passage by both houses of the state legislature and the governor's signature. This legislative approach stands in stark contrast to states that employ independent commissions for redistricting. State Representative Todd Hunter, a key proponent of the legislation, openly stated that the proposed "five new districts are based on political performance," leaving no ambiguity about the partisan intent behind the map.
Governor Greg Abbott has publicly defended the redistricting as a necessary adjustment, citing a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling that challenged the protection of "coalition districts" under the Voting Rights Act. He has also referenced the U.S. Supreme Court's determination that "there is nothing illegal" about shaping districts to a majority party's advantage. This legal stance is rooted in the 2019 Supreme Court decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which ruled that federal courts lack the jurisdiction to review claims of partisan gerrymandering, effectively giving states a green light for such practices at the federal level.
Despite the Rucho ruling, the new map is almost certain to face legal challenges. While federal courts cannot intervene on grounds of partisan gerrymandering, racial discrimination in redistricting remains strictly prohibited under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Courts retain the authority to demand new maps if they determine that congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group. However, the legal landscape is complicated by Rucho, which, by allowing partisan gerrymandering, potentially enables Republican-controlled states to defend maps that de facto dilute minority voting power by arguing the intent was partisan, not racial, given the correlation between party preference and race. This creates a complex legal challenge for civil rights groups. It is noteworthy that past Department of Justice and civil rights lawsuits challenging Texas's 2021 maps on Voting Rights Act grounds were dismissed mainly, suggesting a high legal bar for such challenges and potentially emboldening Texas Republicans in their current efforts. The Supreme Court has also not extended the same legal protections to multiracial coalition districts as it has to traditional majority-minority districts, making the former a strategic target for dismantling by partisan map drawers.
Table 1: Proposed Congressional Seat Shifts – Texas
| Current Republican Seats (2025) | Proposed Republican Seats (Under New Map) | Potential GOP Gain | Targeted Democratic Districts (Examples) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 of 38 | Up to 30 | Up to 5 | Austin, Dallas, Houston, South Texas Metro Areas |
| Current Republican Seats (2025) | Proposed Republican Seats (Under New Map) | Potential GOP Gain | Targeted Democratic Districts (Examples) |
| 25 of 38 | Up to 30 | Up to 5 | Austin, Dallas, Houston, South Texas Metro Areas |
| Current Republican Seats (2025) | Proposed Republican Seats (Under New Map) | Potential GOP Gain | Targeted Democratic Districts (Examples) |
The Democratic Counter: Texas Walkout and California's Retaliatory Threat
The aggressive redistricting efforts in Texas have provoked a strong counter-response from Democrats, both within Texas and from California. In Texas, Democratic lawmakers resorted to a drastic measure: fleeing the state to deny the legislature a quorum, thereby blocking the passage of the controversial map. The Texas House requires 100 members to be present to conduct business, and with only 88 Republicans, the absence of over 50 Democrats effectively halted legislative proceedings.
This tactic, known as "breaking quorum," is considered a "nuclear option" for a minority party when they lack other means to block legislation. Governor Greg Abbott responded fiercely, threatening to remove the absent lawmakers from office and labeling their actions "un-Texan". While civil arrest warrants were issued, legal experts have expressed skepticism regarding the enforceability of these threats, particularly as lawmakers physically outside Texas are beyond the state's jurisdiction. The rhetoric and threats of removal are not merely political bluster but a strategic attempt to delegitimize the quorum break tactic and pressure Democrats, potentially fracturing their unity, as observed in a similar 2021 walkout.
The current walkout by Texas Democrats is not without precedent. Similar tactics have been employed in Texas itself in 2003 and 2021, and in other states such as Oregon, Wisconsin, and Indiana. Historically, these walkouts have yielded mixed results. For instance, the 2003 Texas walkout, aimed at thwarting a Republican congressional redistricting plan, ultimately failed, leading to Republicans gaining six seats in 2004. The 2021 Texas walkout lasted nearly five weeks but eventually collapsed due to internal divisions, allowing the contested bill to pass. This mixed historical record suggests that the current walkout is primarily a delaying tactic and a means to generate national attention and political pressure, rather than a guaranteed legislative veto. Consequences for lawmakers who participate in such actions can include a $500-a-day fine, a rule change implemented after the 2021 walkout. This potential financial penalty underscores the personal risks involved in such actions, adding another layer of complexity to the situation.
In a significant escalation of this interstate political warfare, California Governor Gavin Newsom has publicly threatened to redraw California's congressional maps in direct retaliation against Texas's efforts. His stated intent is to "fight fire with fire," aiming to eliminate Republican-held seats in California and thereby undercut any GOP gains in Texas, ultimately shifting the balance of power in the U.S. House. Newsom has explicitly stated that he would not proceed with California's plan if Texas were to pause its redistricting efforts. This potential retaliation from California could significantly alter the political landscape, making the situation even more complex and high-stakes.
The tentative California proposal seeks to slash five Republican-held House seats and bolster Democratic incumbents, potentially increasing the Democratic margin in California from its current 43 to 48 of its 52 congressional seats. This move is designed to directly counteract any Republican gains in Texas and provide a counterweight to former President Trump's influence on Capitol Hill. This aggressive stance by Governor Newsom, echoed by other prominent Democratic governors such as New York's Kathy Hochul and Illinois' JB Pritzker, signals a growing willingness among Democratic leaders to move beyond traditional political norms and engage in more confrontational redistricting battles. This willingness to engage in aggressive partisan redistricting could also serve as a "litmus test" for potential 2028 presidential contenders, indicating a broader shift towards more confrontational tactics within the Democratic Party and elevating state-level electoral mechanics into national political narratives and ambitions.
Table 2: Proposed Congressional Seat Shifts – California
| Current Democratic Seats (2025) | Proposed Democratic Seats (Under New Map) | Potential Dem Gain | Targeted Republican Districts (Examples) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 43 of 52 | Up to 48 | Up to 5 | Ken Calvert, Darrell Issa, Kevin Kiley, David Valadao, Doug LaMalfa |
| Current Democratic Seats (2025) | Proposed Democratic Seats (Under New Map) | Potential Dem Gain | Targeted Republican Districts (Examples) |
| 43 of 52 | Up to 48 | Up to 5 | Ken Calvert, Darrell Issa, Kevin Kiley, David Valadao, Doug LaMalfa |
| Current Democratic Seats (2025) | Proposed Democratic Seats (Under New Map) | Potential Dem Gain | Targeted Republican Districts (Examples) |
Table 3: Notable Quorum Breaks in U.S. State Legislatures
| Year | State | Reason for Walkout | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Texas | Block GOP congressional redistricting plan | Ongoing; delayed legislative action, but ultimate success uncertain. Governor can call repeated special sessions. |
| 2021 | Texas | Protest Republican efforts to overhaul voting rules | Lasted nearly 5 weeks; some Democrats returned, bill passed. |
| 2011 | Wisconsin | Block GOP governor's plan to strip public workers of union rights | Lasted several weeks; Republicans weakened legislation. |
| 2011 | Indiana | Prevent Republican bill prohibiting mandatory labor union fees | Lasted several weeks; bill successfully passed the following year. |
| 2003 | Texas | Thwart Republican congressional redistricting plan | Failed; GOP plan passed, leading to 6 seat gains in 2004. |
| 1870 | Texas | (General legislative dispute) | (Not specified, but noted as historical precedent) |
| 1970s-Present | Oregon | (Various, including abortion rights, gender-affirming care) | Mixed results; led to constitutional amendment barring re-election for excessive absences. |
| 2021 | New Hampshire | Protest anti-abortion bill | Speaker locked doors to maintain quorum. |
California's Complex Path: Navigating Independent Commissions and Legal Hurdles
California's response to the Texas redistricting initiative is complicated by its unique approach to drawing electoral maps. Unlike Texas, California is one of only ten states that utilizes an independent redistricting commission to draw both congressional and state legislative districts. This commission was established through voter-approved initiatives, Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition 20 (2010), representing a deliberate and voter-backed effort to remove partisan influence from the redistricting process.
The 14-member California Citizens Redistricting Commission is meticulously structured to ensure impartiality. It comprises five Democrats, five Republicans, and four independents, selected through a rigorous, multi-stage process designed to minimize political bias. A critical distinction from Texas's legislative process is the commission's explicit criteria, which constitutionally prohibit the consideration of partisan data or favoring/disfavoring incumbents, candidates, or political parties, except where federal law mandates otherwise. This stands in stark contrast to Texas, where the Legislature openly uses partisan data to draw district lines. The commission's process also places a strong emphasis on public input, conducting numerous public meetings and soliciting extensive community feedback to ensure that district lines preserve communities of interest. To approve a map, a supermajority of nine votes is required, including at least three Democrats, three Republicans, and three independents. Furthermore, any map approved by the commission is subject to a public referendum. Should the commission fail to pass a map or if a map is overturned by referendum, the California Supreme Court is empowered to select special masters to draw the districts.
Governor Newsom's plan to redraw California's maps through the Legislature represents a significant challenge to this constitutionally enshrined independent commission. This would mark the first instance of a governor in a state with an independent redistricting commission actively considering bypassing or effectively dismantling the commission's authority. The primary legal argument supporting a legislative redraw posits that the independent commission is only mandated to draw new lines once every decade following the census, thereby leaving the process for mid-decade redistricting open to the Legislature. However, this interpretation is widely considered a "real stretch legally" and a direct challenge to the fundamental intent behind the voter-approved commission.
Politically, Newsom's proposed move faces substantial hurdles. While Democrats hold a supermajority in the California Legislature, presenting a constitutional amendment to voters that would empower the Legislature on redistricting would require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers. Even if a legislative map were to advance, it would likely be put to California voters in a statewide ballot measure. It remains uncertain whether voters, who overwhelmingly supported the establishment of the independent commission, would approve a return to partisan map drawing, even if framed as a retaliatory measure against Texas's actions. The potential for California voters to temporarily set aside their preference for independent redistricting in response to Texas's actions highlights the radicalizing effect of aggressive partisan gerrymandering. This suggests that the perceived threat to democratic fairness can override established norms and even voter-approved mechanisms, potentially leading to a tit-for-tat escalation.
Some analysts view Governor Newsom's threat as primarily political posturing or "political theater", intended to pressure Texas Republicans rather than a fully committed plan, given the significant legal and voter-approval challenges involved. Others believe that public outrage over Texas's actions might indeed make California voters receptive to a temporary change, though likely not a permanent elimination of the commission. Furthermore, California faces a long-term challenge with its slowing population growth, which could lead to the loss of additional House seats in the 2030 reapportionment, a demographic reality that even aggressive gerrymandering might not fully mitigate.
The Legal Landscape of Gerrymandering: Federal Courts, State Laws, and Voting Rights
The current redistricting showdown is profoundly shaped by the evolving legal framework governing electoral maps, particularly the landmark 2019 Supreme Court decision in Rucho v. Common Cause. In this pivotal ruling, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that federal courts cannot review claims of partisan gerrymandering, classifying them as "nonjusticiable political questions" falling outside their jurisdiction. This decision effectively allowed highly partisan congressional districts in states like North Carolina (favoring Republicans) and Maryland (favoring Democrats) to remain in place.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in the majority opinion, acknowledged that partisan gerrymandering might be "incompatible with democratic principles" but explicitly stated that the responsibility for curbing such practices lies with states and Congress, not the federal judiciary. This ruling has fundamentally altered the redistricting landscape, effectively giving states like Texas a green light to pursue overtly partisan maps without fear of federal judicial intervention on the specific grounds of partisan advantage. The explicit admission by Texas State Representative Todd Hunter that the new districts are "based on political performance" directly leverages this legal reality, openly embracing partisan gerrymandering in a way that would have been more legally fraught before Rucho.
Despite the Rucho ruling, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution continue to prohibit racial discrimination in redistricting. Federal courts retain the power to demand new maps if they find that congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group. However, the Rucho's decision has introduced a layer of complexity. Given the frequent correlation between party preference and race, the ruling potentially allows Republican-controlled states to defend maps that de facto dilute minority voting power by asserting that they intended to discriminate against Democrats, rather than impermissibly discriminate against Black, Latino, or Asian voters. This creates a nuanced and challenging legal battleground for civil rights advocates.
Texas's proposed map explicitly targets districts that protect minority voting rights and aims to dismantle districts previously identified by the Department of Justice for unconstitutionally combining Black and Hispanic voters. While the Department of Justice did file a federal lawsuit against Texas's 2021 maps for Voting Rights Act violations, most of these claims were subsequently dismissed. This past legal outcome indicates a high legal bar for such challenges against Texas's redistricting efforts, potentially emboldening the state to pursue aggressive partisan maps that may have incidental racial impacts. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has not extended the same legal protections to multiracial coalition districts as it has to traditional majority-minority districts, making these a prime target for partisan map drawers seeking to dismantle them.
The contrast in redistricting processes between Texas and California underscores the divergent approaches states take to ensure fair representation. Texas relies on a legislative process that openly uses partisan data, while California's independent commission constitutionally prohibits such partisan considerations. The Rucho's decision implicitly shifted the responsibility for curbing partisan gerrymandering to state legislatures and Congress. This has catalyzed calls for state-level reforms, such as the adoption of independent citizen commissions or other safeguards to prevent partisan bias, and for comprehensive federal legislation, like the "For the People Act," which aims to ban partisan gerrymandering in congressional redistricting and strengthen protections for communities of color. The League of Women Voters' advocacy for independent commissions and the passage of laws like AB 849 in California, which explicitly prohibit partisan gerrymandering, highlight a broader national movement towards redistricting reform aimed at combating partisan gerrymandering and protecting communities of interest.
National Implications: The Battle for House Control and a Looming Redistricting Arms Race
The immediate and most tangible consequence of the Texas-California showdown is its direct impact on the slim Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, currently standing at 219-212. A potential gain of up to five seats for Republicans in Texas, combined with a possible loss of five Republican-held seats in California if Governor Newsom's plan succeeds, could fundamentally alter the balance of power. This makes these state-level conflicts decisive for national legislative control. The outcome of these battles will profoundly influence the political landscape leading into the 2026 midterm elections, potentially making it more difficult for Democrats to reclaim control of the House or, conversely, solidifying the Republican majority.
Beyond the immediate electoral calculations, the aggressive mid-decade redistricting in Texas, actively encouraged by former President Trump, threatens to trigger a nationwide "redistricting domino effect". Trump has openly urged other red states to follow Texas's lead in securing more Republican pickups, and states such as Missouri, Ohio, and Florida are already considering similar mid-cycle maneuvers. In response, Democratic governors, including New York's Kathy Hochul and Illinois' JB Pritzker, are exploring retaliatory redistricting efforts, signaling a potential escalation of partisan map drawing across the country. This could lead to more frequent and aggressive mid-cycle redraws, moving beyond the traditional decennial census-based process and transforming redistricting into a continuous battleground.
The willingness of both major parties to engage in aggressive partisan gerrymandering and to potentially bypass established independent commissions or traditional decennial cycles represents a significant erosion of democratic norms. This dynamic, where politicians effectively "choose their voters" rather than voters choosing their representatives, undermines the fundamental principle of fair representation and can lead to manufactured election outcomes that are detached from the valid preferences of the electorate. While voters in California historically supported non-partisan redistricting, the extreme actions currently unfolding in Texas could radicalize public opinion in other states, potentially making voters more willing to accept partisan counter-measures, even if temporary. This potential shift in public sentiment could further entrench the tit-for-tat dynamic, making long-term, bipartisan reform efforts significantly more challenging.
The escalating gerrymandering battles exacerbate partisan tensions and can render legislative processes more intractable. They contribute to a political environment where electoral outcomes are increasingly determined by the drawing of lines rather than the will of the voters, potentially leading to less responsive and less representative governance. Furthermore, the intense focus on gaining seats through redistricting diverts significant attention and resources from addressing pressing policy issues, as political energy becomes consumed by the mechanics of electoral advantage.
Conclusion: The Enduring Fight for Fair Representation
The redistricting showdown between Texas and California is far more than a localized political dispute; it serves as a microcosm of a broader national struggle over democratic fairness and the fundamental balance of power. This conflict is significantly fueled by the Supreme Court's Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which, by removing federal judicial oversight on partisan gerrymandering, has emboldened states to draw maps for explicit partisan advantage.
Texas's aggressive mid-decade redraw, openly acknowledging its partisan intent and aiming to secure additional Republican seats, stands in stark contrast to California's voter-approved independent commission, which was explicitly designed to prevent such political manipulation. California's retaliatory threat, while navigating complex legal and political hurdles, underscores the escalating nature of this electoral arms race.
The immediate stakes are unequivocally centered on the control of the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the long-term implications extend far beyond this single electoral cycle. There is a tangible risk that these actions could normalize mid-cycle partisan redistricting, erode public trust in electoral processes, and intensify an already polarized political landscape.
While the courts continue to serve as a crucial venue for challenging maps on grounds of racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act, the Rucho ruling has undeniably shifted the primary responsibility for curbing partisan gerrymandering to state legislatures and Congress. Consequently, the enduring fight for fair representation will depend on the willingness of political actors to prioritize democratic principles over immediate partisan gain. This may necessitate either robust state-level reforms, such as the adoption of independent citizen commissions, or comprehensive federal legislation. The Texas-California showdown stands as a stark and timely reminder of the fragility of democratic norms and the perpetual need for vigilance in safeguarding the integrity of electoral systems.
Refrences
AP News. "How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections." https://apnews.com/article/texas-trump-redistricting-census-california-republicans-constitutional-1c62877fc23214548be734bbbf7056117
AP News. "Texas Democrats fleeing state to block redistricting vote follows strategy that's had mixed results." https://apnews.com/article/texas-democrats-walkout-quorum-legislators-maps-8bb099ee19c0638c86b27143ef70d268
AP News. "Texas Republicans get a bigger House edge under a new map." https://apnews.com/article/texas-republicans-democrats-redistricting-72f02ef1eeb04240cc8431e8f962fa10
Brennan Center for Justice. "Gerrymandering Explained." https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained
Brennan Center for Justice. "Redistricting." https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/gerrymandering-fair-representation/redistricting
Center for Politics. "As Redistricting War Looms, Republicans Have More Plausible Opportunities Than Democrats." https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/as-redistricting-war-looms-republicans-have-more-plausible-opportunities-than-democrats/
KPBS. "Texas Democrats walked out to block the GOP. How well has the tactic worked before?" https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2025/08/04/texas-democrats-walked-out-to-block-the-gop-how-well-has-the-tactic-worked-before
League of Women Voters of California. "Redistricting California." https://lwvc.org/issue/redistricting-california/
League of Women Voters of Texas. "Redistricting." https://lwvtexas.org/Redistricting
Loyola Law School. "California Redistricting." https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/california/
Loyola Law School. "Texas Redistricting." https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/texas/
PBS NewsHour. "Texas and California joust for political advantage with Trump's agenda and House majority in play." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/texas-and-california-joust-for-political-advantage-with-trumps-agenda-and-house-majority-in-play
Princeton Gerrymandering Project. "California." https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/reforms/ca/
The American Redistricting Project. "Fair Maps Texas Action Comm. v. Abbott." http://thearp.org/litigation/fair-maps-texas-action-comm-v-abbott/
The American Redistricting Project. "United States v. Texas." http://thearp.org/litigation/united-states-v-texas/
Time. "Why the Texas Redistricting Plan Caused Democrats to Flee and Could Help Trump in the Midterms." https://time.com/7307431/texas-democrats-flee-redistricting-trump/
Texas Tribune. "Newsom says California will redraw maps if Texas redistricts." https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/30/texas-redistricting-california-newsom-retaliatory-congressional-maps/
Texas Tribune. "Texas GOP lawmakers released their first draft of the state's new congressional map Wednesday, proposing revamped district lines that attempt to flip five Democratic seats in next year's midterm elections." https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/30/texas-redistricting-congressional-maps-house-republicans/
Texas Tribune. "Texas redistricting 2021 impact on House seats." https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/04/texas-redistricting-democrats-quorum-break-what-need-know/
Wikipedia. "Redistricting in Texas." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_in_Texas
Wikipedia. "Rucho v. Common Cause." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause
YouTube. "California Gov. Gavin Newsom was joined by a delegation of Texas Democratic lawmakers and said that if that state redraws congressional districts he would act to do the same in the Golden State." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M-YwWvVceU
Add comment
Comments