Welcome to the Fulcrum monthly Roundtable, where we share insights and engage in discussions with Fulcrum's collaborators on some of the most pressing topics.
Consistent with the Fulcrum's mission, this program aims to share diverse perspectives to broaden our readers' viewpoints.
In recent months, gerrymandering has resurfaced in national headlines as several states prepare to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Texas led the charge with a newly signed map targeting five Democrat-held seats, prompting similar moves or legal challenges in states like California, Ohio, Utah, and Missouri.
Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts to favor a particular political party, group, or demographic.
I spoke with two of the Fulcrum's collaborators about the controversial practice that undermines democratic principles by allowing politicians to choose their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Giuliana Perrone is an Associate Professor of History at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
- YouTube youtu.be
Giuliana wrote: Texas Redistricting Showdown: Why the Fight Over Five GOP Seats Reveals a Broken System. She told us about the battle over mid-decade gerrymandering, which exposes deep flaws in congressional representation.
"So, there is a gerrymandering problem that exists irrespective of when we do it, but in this particular instance, Texas has decided to do a redistricting mid-decade," said Giuliana. "Typically, redistricting happens after each census because the Constitution requires that reapportionment take place after each census." She says that there is a clear indication that this is about politics, especially given that President Trump said republicans are "entitled to five more seats" in Texas and called for the state's congressional district map to be redrawn to achieve that goal.
"But the structural problem of gerrymandering as a practice exists every time we redistrict," said Giuliana. "In some states more than others. The way that we apportion representatives is not equitable, given some of these deeper structural flaws."
Austin has written several stories on gerrymandering, but none struck a chord like Why Blue States Had Better Get Busy Gerrymandering.
In the column, he argued that Democrats can no longer afford to heed Michelle Obama's famously wise advice to "When they go low, we go high."
"Democrats need to understand that the house is on fire. The normal rules may lead us to a situation in which the constitutional republic itself is in danger," he said. "You can't get to democracy democratically, but you can end democracy democratically."
Austin explained that he believed the response to Texas is a way for "blue for blue states" to try to preserve a republican form of government at the federal level, because the existence of Article Four of the Constitution presupposes that form of government. "You're not going to guarantee a republican form of government to the states if you don't have it at the federal level," he said.
"So, I think that the gerrymandering that may happen in California, Illinois, or some other blue state is not just normal partisan shenanigans; it's almost a constitutional duty in order to preserve the constitutional republic," he continued.
Giuliani agreed, "You have to win the battle if you want to continue fighting the war for democracy. So, in the short term, using the tools that you have to maintain the republic is in fact an essential obligation. Yes, we would like ultimately to have a more democratic, more equitable form of representation, but that actually has to be sort of be put on the back burner when the house is on fire if you want to live to fight another day."
"Lincoln did a lot of things that were questionable because the immediate necessity required it if he was going to save the Union," said Giuliana. "None of us are saying we should pursue this route (gerrymandering) simply as a fighting fire with fire. It is much more nuanced than that.”
The redistricting wave has been described as “unprecedented” by experts like Kareem Crayton of the Brennan Center for Justice, who noted that the 2019 Supreme Court decision in Rucho v. Common Cause effectively removed federal oversight of partisan gerrymandering, giving states free rein to reshape districts for political gain.
As litigation unfolds and political maneuvering intensifies, the nation finds itself in what one expert called “an interesting purgatory,” with the shape of future representation hanging in the balance.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.