Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Worst Gerrymandered States Face Redistricting Showdown As Trump Pressures Texas

Opinion

Worst Gerrymandered States Face Redistricting Showdown As Trump Pressures Texas

Anti-gerrymandering protest

Sarah L. Voisin/Getty Images

President Donald Trump is actively urging Texas lawmakers to redraw congressional districts in what’s fast becoming a national showdown over electoral fairness. If successful, the effort could yield five additional safe Republican seats — boosting the GOP’s control to nearly 80% of Texas’s 38-member congressional delegation.

Texas already ranks among the worst offenders in the country for gerrymandered districts. As The Fulcrum reported in December 2024, two of its congressional maps are textbook cases in manipulated representation. The latest maneuver threatens to deepen that problem.


Sam Wang, director of the Electoral Innovation Lab, framed the danger bluntly:

“People think of gerrymanders as consisting of funny-shaped individual districts. But that’s not true… A clever expert with mapping software can lasso voters wherever they live… Gerrymandering is not a single-district offense. The offense arises from a skew in the statewide plan as a whole.”

“Lassoing voters” is exactly what Trump is advocating. He’s pressed Texas Republicans to redraw five competitive Democratic districts into safe GOP territory, calling it a “very simple redrawing” with major consequences for the 2026 midterms. According to The Texas Tribune, Trump’s team is collaborating directly with state legislators to engineer the switch.

Speaking to reporters on July 15, Trump declared:

“Texas will be the biggest one. Just a simple redrawing — we pick up five seats.” He added: “There could be some other states — we’re going to get another three, or four or five in addition.”

His broader national strategy remains somewhat opaque, but several states are reportedly in play:

  • Missouri: Considering a redraw to flip one or two seats.
  • Ohio: Legally required to update its maps — with potential GOP gains.
  • Florida: GOP-favorable court rulings pave the way for future redraws.
  • Utah: Legal challenges could prompt map tweaks that fortify Republican control.
  • Wisconsin: Liberals won control of the state Supreme Court, but redistricting efforts have stalled — for now.

A Nationwide Tit-for-Tat looms on the horizon. Democrats are preparing their countermove. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has floated a bold response: redrawing maps to favor Democrats if Texas proceeds. "Two can play that game," he said, suggesting special sessions, ballot initiatives, or even constitutional amendments could pave the way for 5–7 new blue-leaning districts.

According to Politico, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has joined the conversation, meeting with California lawmakers to discuss strategic responses — including locking in safe Democratic seats through mid-cycle redistricting.

This battle might expand across the country as other blue states, such as New York and Illinois, consider putting mid-decade redistricting on the table.

One only has to look at Illinois to realize that both sides play the gerrymandering game. As reported in the Fulcrum in December, there’s a narrow strip of Illinois that is the worst example, the 13th district, which connects disparate pockets of Democratic voters in Champaign, Urbana, Decatur, Springfield, and East St. Louis. The district splits six counties, as well as multiple townships, cities, and even precincts, contributing to a 14-3

Analyst Khaled Shoucair called it “the most aggressive Democratic gerrymander in the country,” reducing GOP seats from five to three through creative vote allocation. As he put it:

“A large number of Republican votes are wasted — either packed into overwhelmingly Republican districts or diluted in Democratic strongholds.”

The Bigger Picture

This is not just a turf war between parties — it’s an erosion of public trust. When only 10–15% of congressional districts are competitive, as is the case in the 119th Congress, the result is a landscape where 370 to 390 seats are virtual locks for one party. That’s roughly 85–90% of the House.

In non-competitive districts, general elections are perfunctory. Real contests happen in primaries — often shaped by low turnout and ideological extremism. Voters outside the dominant party feel powerless, their ballots reduced to symbolic gestures.

This moment demands attention. Gerrymandering is about nothing other than control. And when both parties distort district lines to preserve power, voters lose their voice. If our democracy is to survive, we must confront the consequences of a system where representation is predetermined and competition is the exception.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


Read More

Who Decides Whether America Goes to War?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Who Decides Whether America Goes to War?

Because taking our country into war has the potential, if not the likelihood, even in modernwarfare, of costing the bodies and lives of American soldiers as well as disrupting the economy, this is an important question.

The Constitution is the guide to answering this question. The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Republicans aren’t willing to call the war in Iran what it is

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (left) and Admiral Charles Bradford "Brad" Cooper II, Commander of US Central Command, speak during a press conference at US Central Command (CENTCOM) headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, on March 5, 2026.

(Octavio Jones/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)

Republicans aren’t willing to call the war in Iran what it is

Let's state the obvious: We’re at war with Iran.

My evidence? Turn on your TV. U.S. forces, working with Israel, killed the supreme leader of Iran and many of his top aides. We sunk Iran’s navy and destroyed most of their air force. We bombed thousands of military sites across the region. President Trump, the commander in chief, has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran. He routinely refers to this as a “war.” Pete Hegseth, who calls himself the secretary of war, also describes this as a war daily, such as last week when he said, “We set the terms of this war.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Selling War Like a Brand Is Disrespectful to Those Truly in Harm’s Way

A memorial in Tyrone honors residents who served in World War I.

Photo by Jay Paterno.

Selling War Like a Brand Is Disrespectful to Those Truly in Harm’s Way

Each day in America as late morning approaches, families of service members stationed in the Middle East probably grow nervous as nightfall nears seven time zones away. On military bases or aircraft carriers, pilots are fueling up and taking off for missions over Iran. In countries across both sides of the Persian Gulf, civilians await the terror of missiles and bombs whistling through the darkness.

Back home, a mother worries about her son in his plane. A spouse, with a young child, worries about their service member while balancing the everyday stresses of holding a family together. At night, the seriousness of war emerges, and the distant drumbeats pound amid the silence.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Constitution
U.S. Constitution
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

The Constitution: As Important As the Bible

America was made for a purpose - to prosper, to live better, to be all one can be; they are one and the same thing. Our Constitution was designed to deliver that purpose. The Constitution is a business plan, a prototype invention intentionally designed to grow people.

The Constitution was a paradigm change in who governed whom, and for what ultimate purpose people would govern each other. By amending it with the Bill of Rights, it became a purposeful enterprise framework for people to prosper first, not the more powerful, self-centered, often tyrannical, and prosperity-limiting special interests.

Keep ReadingShow less