Manipulating district lines is just one way politicians stay in power. Another is by making it harder for the electorate to vote them out. A new report by a liberal think tank concludes that partisan gerrymandered legislatures have led to more voting restrictions — "a power grab on top of a power grab."
The Center for American Progress study, released Wednesday, found that Republicans in four states used map-guaranteed statehouse majorities to enact voting restriction (such as photo ID laws) and block easements to the ballot box (like longer early voting periods) — efforts that have proven particularly burdensome for communities of color, which usually vote Democratic.
The report is the fourth and final in a series designed to show why the cause of redistricting reform — turning district map drawing over to independent commissions — should be more of a priority for the left. The first, in December, blamed partisan gerrymandering for an absence of new gun controls this decade. The others cited the system for limiting Medicaid expansions and curtailing government spending on child care and education.
"If majorities of voters cannot elect majorities of legislators, that is a failure of democracy," said Alex Tausanovitch, co-author of the new report. "If those ill-gotten majorities then use their power to disenfranchise voters, that is a democratic downward spiral."
The report focuses on election law in four big purple states where Republicans drew the maps in 2011 and have controlled the state capitals ever since — even now, dispite the fact that in all of them Democratic candidates won the aggregate statewide legislative vote in the 2018 midterms: North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
In Raleigh, for instance, Democratic lawmakers advocated for a bill last year that would have provided free IDs to North Carolinians, implemented automatic and same-day voter registration, and expanded online registration and early voting. But since Republicans held the majority in the Legislature, the bill did not pass.
CAP's report states that if North Carolina had legislative districts that fairly reflected the state's partisan makeup, Democrats would have controlled the Legislature and "been able to implement positive reforms expanding voting access."
Wisconsin's confused and coronavirus-tainted primary in April is another example that CAP points to. Had the statehouse in Madison been under Democratic control, the study concluded, the state would have enacted laws either postponing the election or making it much easier to vote by mail because of the Covid-19 pandemic — all efforts that were blocked by the GOP.
Putting nonpartisan commissions of regular citizens in charge of mapmaking is widely regarded as the best solution to combating gerrymandering. "Taking the power to draw districts away from incumbent politicians is the first step toward any serious reform," CAP's report concludes.
In 2018, Michigan voters approved a ballot measure to create a nonpartisan redistricting commission, which will be established in time for this decade's redistricting following the results of the census. Last year, North Carolina's districts were redrawn after a panel of judges ruled the previous maps violated the state Constitution's "free elections" clause. A similar situation played out in Pennsylvania two years ago when the state's highest court rejected the legislative maps. And in Wisconsin, the push for redistricting reform remains ongoing.
Next year, following the census, 14 states will use independent commissions to draw state legislative districts, and eight will do so for congressional districts. Virginians will vote in November on whether to join this group of states, whereas Missourians will vote on whether to undo a reform initiative they approved two years ago.
Campaigns for redistricting reform are ongoing in Oregon and Nevada, and anti-gerrymandering advocates in Arkansas and North Dakota are awaiting official approval for their ballot petitions.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.