Fighting hard not to just simply post, "Shaddup, Egger!" =)
But in all seriousness, I do agree. We can't just gerrymander and re-gerrymander ad infinitum. We need to get a majority, and then we need to pass durable anti-gerrymandering measures everywhere. Make gerrymandering air-tight illegal all over the country. Tit-for-Tat is the way to get us to that majority, but it is not the way we should proceed.
This is definitely one of the more confounding and infuriating things I've read in The Bulwark, because it just puts the onus to stop this insanity on the Democrats, as though there were anything we could do to stop it. Like saying if some insane person is repeatedly kicking you in the crotch, you should appeal to their reason to get them to stop.
I really don't know what we can do right now other than try to match them gerrymander for gerrymander to get a majority, as you suggest. Right now, we can't do anything legislatively, because nothing would make it out of the House, and if it did, nothing would make it out of the Senate and filibuster, and if it did, Trump wouldn't sign it, and if he did, the SCOTUS would likely rule it an unconstitutional federal imposition on state-run elections if some red state decided to challenge it. And that whole chain of reasoning makes me think we won't be able to do anything about it unless we A) Get majorities in both houses of Congress, B) Win the presidency, C) Eliminate the filibuster, and D) Expand the SCOTUS, and all four of those must occur simultaneously. Easy, right?
Yes, this "Dems need to be better than that" mentality is what led Merrick Garland and Joe Biden to let Trump skate and look where that has led. It also reminds me of the tsk-tsking about Biden pardoning his son before he left office but my God, does anyone doubt that this administration would have already brought charges against him if that hadn't occurred?
Andrew is not wrong that this is a terrible place to be for our democracy. We should pass anti-gerrymandering laws in every state. But we won't because Republicans don't want them. This Republican party is a cancer destroying our country and that calls for some nasty chemo. Very sad and very disheartening but very true.
You could have stopped at "The Republican party is a cancer" and still be not wrong. Chemo is a good comparison of what we are going to need to do to stop it, but don't forget that chemotherapy is only the first part of the treatment.
The important bit, after you poison it back, is to cut it out and kill it.
Well, this is maybe the electoral and legislative 'medicine' we have to take to to remedy the sorry situation we find ourselves in. As KO observes, cancer is bad, chemo is not fun, but you do what you gotta do.
Floridians passed a constitutional amendment in 2010 that banned partisan gerrymandering. This law, known as Fair Districts, is part of our state Constitution.
Long story short, Gov. Rhonda Santis appointed 6 members to the 7-member Florida Supreme Court. In response to a lawsuit brought by Rhonda, that court overturned a part of Fair Districts last year.
Now Rhonda & the Republican Florida Legislature just passed new, extremely partisan maps that ignore the Fair Districts requirements completely, figuring that the Florida Supremes will uphold it in light of the U.S. Supremes ruling from this week.
In other words, Rhonda and his Republican cohorts just aimed a giant middle finger at Floridians.
And to your point, it would not matter if every state passed anti-gerrymandering laws. In red states, Republicans would just laugh at it.
P.S. Rhonda Santis has disrespected my values every day of his governorship, so I take every opportunity to disrespect him; hence "Rhonda Santis."
Really tired of hearing anti-trumpers whinge on about how Democrats should TRY to set right the wrongs their own party have inflicted on the whole country and the world.
It was all sunshine and roses when Raygun started his tax cutting spree and talking up trickle down. Both Bushs' getting us into forever wars, shooting up the deficit, leaving messes for the next Dem president to clean up. When Dems get in power these same republicans beseeching the Dems to save them, start speechifying about the deficit and socialism.
Right now we fight with the weapons at hand. And if and when we get back into power our president and lawmakers are going to have to govern a whole different way. There is no going back to the status quo. And republicans have their party to thank for that.
This stupidity penned by Egger makes me want to discount literally every single thing he ever wrote. All I can think of is the memof the dog sipping coffee while fire rages around him and he says :everythings fine" or whatever
Any time you ask yourself if you should let Republicans and conservatives win, ask yourself if you believe that slaves thought that their life under the south was worth living, because under the Republican regime, that's all anyone will ever be allowed to be, because anything else is a threat to their superiority.
Then ask yourself if you believe that Republicans would allow you to live and let live if there was any kind of fence that kept you apart, or if they would tear down any obstacle to you being as oppressed as they are by the systems they have created and worshiped, literally.
This is what I hear in my mind whenever someone says, "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative." Yeah... So you're okay with me existing as long as I sit down, shut up, and don't cost you any money.
If by confounding you mean "dumb", then yes, yet it is. This appears to have been written by some modern day Rip Van Winkle who fell asleep sometime in the mid-90's and just woke up yesterday. If Trump excels at anything it is forcing you between two bad choices. In this case it is fight fire with fire and burn the house down, or stand for your morals and fight with one hand tied behind your back. I'm sorry, but those are the choices. Wishing it were different won't make it so. Of all places, The Bulwark should know this by now.
Very easy, Don. Just as easy as getting the President to act like a reasonable head of the Executive whose only interest is the welfare of the American people, or, hell, just the welfare of the fools that elected him.
I am very not happy that Louisiana suspended an election over this.
I see a future of entrenched fascist states where only the people who attend the correct churches can vote, balanced by somewhat more democratic states who support the fascism financially.
Wait, I'm getting news that I'm not describing the future, but the past AND the future. Yuck.
Well, I tell you true that I was feeling that already when I left Pennsylvania back in 2018. I felt I had to "play along" and allow my landlord to believe my husband and I were "God-fearin' Christians" in order to be offered a lease and "good, right-thinking people" to get the guy who was paid to plow our impossibly long driveway to get us out when snowed in. It's a goodly part of why I emigrated.
I am horrified that Louisiana was allowed to stop an election when people had already voted. But who do I think "allowed" it? I mean, it's not like there's a court that could order it to go forward if the Supreme Court was against it.
I would truly love if the Supreme Court opinion was correct and we no longer needed racial gerrymandering to make voting equal in the US South. I want to live in that post-racist country. But the United States is not there yet. And it's starting to look like it never will be.
I LIVE in Louisiana. I am outraged, but not surprised, that our foul governor, who is almost as stupid as his Dear Leader, suspended an ongoing election so they can gerrymander people of color out of existence. It won't be "people" who blah-blah, it will be white men. The same assholes who were in charge 250 years ago and compromised on slavery.
Meanwhile, over in Alabama, Florida Man Tuberville has announced that districts should be redrawn "to reflect the politics and values of Alabamians." Because, you know, people in Alabama who cast votes for Democrats are not Alabamians.
Dana Bash (look at this! Tim is recommending a Dana Bash book! WTF!) wrote a book released last year called “America’s Deadliest Election” which takes a deep dive into the post civil war 1872 Governor’s Election. It is a fascinating and horrifying look at Louisiana (and the South) just 150 years ago. I have to admit that I couldn’t put the relatively short book down. I think, if you pick it up somewhere - you can get a used copy for five or six bucks - you will think that the old bromide about history ‘echoing’ is true as can be.
Thanks for the book rec. Grateful in this unsavory moment that Heather Cox Richardson is a Civil War/Reconstruction specialist. If you want a chuckle, check out how her ever-expanding platform gets under Nate Silver’s brittle skin:
I tried to read it, but stopped halfway through. The man doth protest too much. I kept thinking, "Stick to statistics, Nate!". That's one Substack I won't be subscribing to.
Racists look in the mirror - and hate themselves too! I take your point, Frau K. But the selfishness is the point with Americans, racist or otherwise. They’re all so f’n afraid somebody might get something MORE than they get, and that therefore they’re getting screwed somehow. They (WE!) can’t see past our own noses.
Call off the election!!!!! We haven't rigged it sufficiently...Oh, and remember to re-elect Gov Landry next time at the polls. Because I am working for you.
While the suspended election is not a good thing, it does provide clarity: the Supreme Court performed its latest evisceration of the VRA, and within hours an election was called off to better crush the voting power of Black people.
With such a simple and direct, "Given A, then B" chain of events, it's easier to make the case to the folks who, like Eggers, are hesitant to fight fire with fire.
Nah, the "never Trump" Republicans just believe they will be able to take back power in the wake of Democrats spending their energy trying to put down the Cancer that is MAGA. It just serves as a reminder that like our forefathers before us failed to do after Appomattox, we must be certain to end the threat to liberty and democracy before we put down our arms, and not leave another Andrew Johnson to undo the efforts of Lincoln.
Why honor the fascists with a name that implies their power has any kind of legitimacy? Calling those states the republic of anything flatters the worst people. As a Tennessean, I'm a citizen of the United States of America and refuse to be considered anything else. I believe there was a war fought over this.
If we had won it, then it wouldn't have taken another century for black people to vote, and they wouldn't have had that right taken away again in less than a century.
We lost the civil war, we can say that with perfect clarity now, not because we lost the battle, or because we lost the fighting, but because we refused to take away the power from the Epstein class that existed then, and has continued to exist since. So now we have to fight it again.
No one, other than a Louisiana Republican, can be happy about the state's suspension of its election to re-
gerrymandering (oops, redraw Congressional districts) to conform with the latest SC travesty. On the other hand, what else could we expect? The Republican Party discarded any sense of fair play about forty years ago.
Because it is. The only way out of this is national anti-gerrymandering laws and we’re not going to get there until the next civil war is over. Republicans do not care that they are being disgusting pieces of shit - they want power and don’t care how they get it or maintain it. We keep saying that the mask has dropped, but I don’t think we have truly seen how depraved Republicans (politicians and voters) will get.
I do tend to agree with you. Republicans are not ashamed. They have duped their constituents into believing that the Democrats are "evil" and "ruined the country". Meanwhile, they pick their teeth with the dried-up bones of their constituents' farms and small businesses and livelihoods. They are proud they are playing dirty to defeat us.
Perhaps Andrew is feeling his vote for the Virginia gerrymander was a little like voting for Netanyahu. You feel some fight is necessary, but how do you keep it from getting out of hand? In the words of Santayana: "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." Our aim is restoring the health of democratic and constitutional governance.
I voted for both original California redistricting commission and yes, on last year’s referendum, and I do not regret either vote. For the record I was happy with the commission and had no objections to its continuance. I do, however, feel a bit of a dupe for somehow believing that states adopting fair commissions would lead to them becoming the norm across the country. I am also tired of why it is only Democrats who must kick the tires and make noises about good governance. I would really like to know what will bring Republicans back to the table of compromise and make them willing to contemplate doing something for the good of the country.
"I would really like to know what will bring Republicans back to the table of compromise and make them willing to contemplate doing something for the good of the country."
You and me both. The only time I see a Republican do the right thing is when they plan to retire, after reliably doing the wrong thing for the last ten years.
That ship has sailed. "Conservatives" in my youth meant George Wallace and the jackasses who followed, implementing the "Southern Strategy". The Republican Party purposely turned itself into a machine for fomenting hatred among the working class in order to control the electoral votes in the South. I didn't believe they had any inclination to do anything for the good of the country or the working people who live here. When they talked about "smaller government," they meant taking help away from poor people or not forcing corporations to stop polluting or provide safety equipment for their employees.
I appreciate this comment and your other lengthy comment today. We all feel in our bones that the election of Trump signals the abandonment by huge swaths of the country of the ideals that make democracy function. Restoring those ideals, if it is to succeed at all, will be the work of many many years. In the meantime, I think it wise to keep in mind principles like proportionality-in-response so our goals are not lost in the rush to escalate.
Wait, BACK to the table? I don’t think I remember a time in my life where they were present at the table in the first place. This didn’t start with Trump, Trump just let took away whatever few remaining restraints they felt like they had which forced them to compromise. Their entire strategy since I was a child was “oppose democrats no matter what.”
The Republican party is not going to be a partner in good governance until there is accountability that results in a complete overhaul of the party. It will have to transform into something completely new. The only good faith disagreement that is happening as far as policy is concerned is between the moderate and progressive flanks of the democratic side. I would like to see more conservative/moderate Dems run as Republicans, take over the party, and hand the keys to the Democratic party leadership to the progressives. That is the only way in which I can see a a future where both parties work on behalf of the people, and we will generally be in good hands regardless of who wins. After 2.5 more years of Donald Trump and MAGA continuing down the path of destruction, I don’t think it’s as far-fetched of a scenario as it might seem.
I think this might be an issue about both gerrymandering and trust.
I live in California. I voted for the bipartisan commission back in the day. I voted for ranked choice voting. Gerrymandering is clearly bad! It is objectively good if more people feel they are represented.
That said, I am furious that my act of goodwill was repaid with efforts to do literally the opposite in other parts of the country and will be so again. I completely distrust the republican establishments in red states.
I understand that, especially with this decision, this may get worse. I also understand that a cost has to be extracted to change behavior. No behavior changed when California or other blue states did the right thing. The conclusion, therefore, is that another course must be taken.
The right framing of this is not tit-for-tat is bad. The right framing is tit-for-tat is an optimal game theory strategy to keep your opponent from defecting all the time!
Also, if I'm going to get f**ed by congressional republicans, I want it to hurt them while they do it. As JVL would say, let's choose the wrench.
I'm all for an anti-gerrymander bill, my own purple state was gerrymandered to the right for a decade until voters changed things. At the same time, the GOP understands that their only shot is through entrenching minority rule. So what do we do while they stall and negotiate? We have to respond.
The tit-for-tat response is clearly situational, where we need to do what we need to do, to save what we want to save.
In war--arguably our current situation--one will be called upon to do things one would rather not do and would never do in ordinary circumstance. Returning fire, with an intent to take someone out, is the appropriate response when being shot at on the battlefield.
I might add, that as normal people, these will be traumatic choices. People go to battle, do horrible things. When it is over, they will do their best to return to normalcy, knowing that they're unlikely to get there. The stain of these fights will live with us all for a long time. This is a just and right cause and, as many have done before us, these are the burdens we must bear to keep what we value.
But that's the problem we're left with - gerrymandering ad infinitum. Look, I get it. Our system was designed largely on the honor system. And for the most part, our politicians previously operated that way, so we were willing to overlook the instances where politicians bent the rules or took minor advantage of loopholes. And we were fine with it. I live in Illinois, and I don't remember anyone saying back in 2010 "boy, I'm really disturbed at the way Illinois is rigging the map.
Put simply, we turned a blind eye to relatively minor shenanigans because they were exactly that: relatively minor.
Then comes Trump, who decided to ignore rules others bent, and drove a semi-truck through every loophole he can find. Other presidents fired off a questionable pardon or two on their way out the door? Why wait, and why deal in small numbers? 'm just going to pardon anyone willing to line my coffers whenever the hell I want. We used to gerrymander every decade? Again, what's the holdup? If gerrymandering is okay, it's okay no matter when you do it.
Thus, while I agree the democrats need to realize there's no point taking the moral high ground if it means getting your @$$ kicked on the regular, the problem I see is that power is easy to grab, and impossible to give up.
Right now, sane conservatives, moderates, and the left are forming a coalition to combat a threat coming from the right, and I love this for us. But what happens if a threat comes from the left? It's not to hard to imagine. Go back 20 years, and most people would probably tell you if a talented, populist demagogue - which Trump certainly is, even if he can't spell UAE even if you spotted him the first two letters - rose to political prominence from either party, it would be from the Dems.
Bottom line: there's no dispute the anti-Trump coalition has been painted into a corner. But let's not kid ourselves - we're scattering loaded guns everywhere, and someone is going to pick one up.
TLDR: "He who fights with monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you".
If we accept that elections and election procedures are controlled by the states under the principle of limited sovereignty and Federalism, then it is unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit gerrymandering throughout our country.
I am opposed to gerrymandering. My hope is that every state would establish non-partisan or bipartisan commissions to examine and adjust voting districts based on current census results and that adhere with the principles of the Voting Rights Act.
Gerrymandering depends on the flawed belief that voters within any given district will always vote for candidates of a certain political party.
Apparently, DeSantis based his newly gerrymandered map on the potential SCOTUS ruling in the Louisiana voting rights case and most Republican legislators said nothing while voting for it, regardless of the state Constitution.
My guess is that (quite literally) the jury is not out on this.
Yeah, true. I did forget that the states are in control of their elections. That said, I fear for the states in the South because I do not think their election commissions have fairness at heart. Hell, I don't know what to suggest then. A new Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court can strike down?
It's been suggested that AI might be a help in creating equitable districts, just like it has been a help unraveling chemicals and re-raveling them into medicines.
Yeah no. Equity is a qualitative thing, not a quantitative one. I have no confidence that whoever is doing the inputing into AI has any concept of that.
California's redistricting rules look for a "community of interest". From the law: "A community of interest is a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates."
I think that is a qualitative thing. Let's just say I have no confidence that AI can really assess whether there is a community of interest, especially in close cases.
I like that, except that when community of interest extends to people wanting to be represented *as*members of a race or ethnicity, it's a can of worms. How about if Ai were instructed to go as far as socio-econmic factors, but no farther?
AI could probably crunch numbers to do that. But then humans would have to come in to do the rest. Community of interest in terms of a common racial or ethnic background is the thing that gets blown up by "cracking" a group to put them in different districts so they don't have the collective power to vote in a candidate. This happens in urban areas in particular where somehow a minority community is together geographically gets cut in half or more pieces...into different districts.
I would like to point out that Democrats have kicked the tires on anti-gerrymandering and even passed a bill that included a ban on partisan gerrymandering on March 8 2019 and again on March 3 2021. Neither of these bills went anywhere because Senate Republicans weren’t interested. If you look at the states which passed independent redistricting commissions most were either blue or purple states with the exception of Florida but that was back in 2010 when the state was still electing Democratic presidents and senators. The state under Ron DeSantis has done everything to reverse what the voters passed. The failure of the good governance crowd and those working against gerrymandering failed to make their case convincingly Republicans. At the moment those arguments have lost the day, and hopefully not for ever, but they will need to convince Republicans and red states why that matters, and have to accept responsibility that their arguments in that regard failed.
This is a well-put version of an argument I think Democratic politicians and their voters should actively push against. Yes, Democrats tried to ban partisan gerrymandering at the federal level in 2019 and 2021--as part of the For the People Act, a Democratic elections omnibus that was never seriously intended to get Republican buy-in. This does not give them a free pass to give up on the issue at the federal level permanently. There are other potential anti-gerrymandering proposals under the sun!
How do you pass a federal anti-gerrymander law if you let them wipe out 19 Black seats in the south and don’t respond in kind where you have power, Andrew?
And yet had Republicans wanted to engage something likely could have been worked out. Look, I live in California and voted for the redistricting commission in 2008 but also voted yes on the referendum last year. I liked and still like the commission. There had been no constituency for doing away with or suspending it, and Democrats in the state weren’t truing to do away with it until the national political reality changed. At this point I feel a bit like a dupe for thinking that states as laboratories could, by making these commissions work, change gerrymandering across the country. The problem is that those who pushed for these sorts of good governance lost the argument in Republican lead states. Rather than lecturing those of us who have believed and voted for these measures, please tell us what would it take Republicans to go along with it, and work on convincing them to back anti-gerrymandering measures as that is where the real work is.
I am honestly not sure because there doesn’t seem to be much incentives to bring Republicans back to the table at the moment. But some of that may change if November goes very badly for Republicans, and particular what direction Hispanic voters in states like Texas and Florida go. I am not sure the coalitions current voting patterns will stay the same going forward.
Are you trying to tell everyone here that you honestly believe that there could possibly be an anti-gerrymandering bill that could gain Republican Congressional, Executive, and Supreme Court approval? You truly believe this??? After everything we have seen?, after Florida decided to go against the will of their voters? I find it implausible that you really think this could happen.
I had to wait several days to comment in order to quiet my consternation at this sentence of yours:
"Still, there’s a reasonable argument to support Justice Samuel Alito’s conclusion that the way some courts had chosen to apply the VRA over the years had become preposterous—finding that if a state’s population could support a racial gerrymander creating a certain number of majority-minority districts, it was bound by law to do so."
Please give me just one example of a state with too many majority-minority districts. I don't believe you (or Mr. Alito) can do so.
With this sentence, you appear to suggest that you somehow missed learning about the long, bloody American history of the struggle for civil rights. And the decency and integrity that finally prompted the VRA and its goal of fair and equitable representation.
As Ronald Reagan said,
"The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished. To protect all our citizens, I believe the Voting Rights Act should and must be extended."
It really does seem to be true that one party tries to actually govern and the other party isn't remotely interested in actually governing. Are there exceptions to these rules on both sides? Of course, but from a plurality/majority perspective, it's clear that the Dems by and large want to govern, and the Repubs by and large just want to stay in power by any means necessary. Unfortunately, since the Repubs are in control right now, and the rules they play by are, well, there don't seem to be any rules anymore, everyone else is forced to play just as dirty until we get back to some semblance of normal. Which I hope happens.
Stuart Stevens book, It Was All a Lie, is a great read and really opened my eyes.
Great comment. I’d also add that the SCOTUS (unsurprisingly) paved way for this by refusing to take up the partisan gerrymandering cases earlier this decade to restrict it. (Too busy on their big prize of killing the VRA)
We could easily support non-biased voting commissions to build balance districts.
But as David Frum perfectly stated, ‘when conservatives can no long win elections, they won’t give up on conservatism, they will give up on democracy’.
It does seem as if that day is lost, for now, perhaps not forever. If the Republicans with the recent Supreme Court decision really do believe in the anti-discrimination, equality and fairness arguments they have launched against affirmative action, against wholistic college admissions, and against majority minority congressional districts, then perhaps they could be persuaded to accept the use of geometric/arithmatic models for creating congressional districts.
Forget about so-called bi-partisan election commissions -- and forget entirely about the concept of community either in its ethnic sense or in its sense of political entity through incorporation of towns and cities. Divide each state into the required number of congressional seats by converging blobs of equal population.
I did this using Grok and Chat tools the other day for the frequently contested state of Wisconsin. Both came up with a fairly handsome looking map -- and in one case it did so honoring county boundaries when possible. Yes, in the densest areas of population you could possibly end up with a majority minority district by default, but not necessarily. Numeric maps would truly reflect the principle of one person, one vote.
As it stands, neither party would go for this at the moment, with Republicans fearing they would be overwhelmed, and Democrats screaming that minority districts must be retained.
"Still, there’s a reasonable argument to support Justice Samuel Alito’s conclusion that the way some courts had chosen to apply the VRA over the years had become preposterous—finding that if a state’s population could support a racial gerrymander creating a certain number of majority-minority districts, it was bound by law to do so."
This is why The Bulwark, and Andrew Egger specifically, sometimes falls short; returning to their conservative foundations as a way of making excuses for an racist decision by Alito and the corrupt supreme court. Democrats have long supported federal law to eliminate gerrymandering, and blue states are the only ones who have actually passed laws to support fair maps. Fact: forming minority districts is NOT "preposterous;" because if there was no gerrymandering those districts would have formed organically. The "crack and pack" form of gerrymandering practiced by the south eliminates any chance of that happening, and the VRA was written to prevent it from happening. So, no, there is no "reasonable argument" to support Alito's racist conclusion. Unless that argument is to eliminate all gerrymandering.
Oh and Andrew - democrats are not giving up, and we are STILL the only ones talking about eliminating gerrymandering. Perhaps you should join us.
Also, even if you can find some "preposterous examples" of how the courts have applied the VRA in the past, Alito's decision sets such a high bar for section 2 that it's now effectively impossible to apply it at all. That's pretty far from a reasonable solution. Also do we actually trust Republican legislatures to prudently go after only the majority-majority districts Andrew thinks are preposterous? Obviously not. Alito gave them the license to erase every single one and we (pro-democracy forces) shouldn't help cloak Sam Alito in any kind of reasonability or legitimacy. It minimizes the overall damage this decision will do to multiracial democracy.
It’s OK for immigration enforcement to just grab a person that speaks a different language has brown or black skin or has an accent and then you can sort it out later. Shameful
Cui bono? In all these cases the Supreme court is ruling in ways that benefit white identity. Race in admissions for private institutions that might result ins someone of color taking a spot that should have been white: nope. Making sure black voters electoral power isn’t hobbled by the white majority with a history of systemic racism: nope. Black and brown people being plucked off the street based on racial characteristics: you betcha!
Of course this has always been the *natural* state in this country only now with a fig leaf of how colorblind we are.
We've never been colorblind and it is ridiculous to pretend that now that the white supremacists are in charge, racism is behind us. I do have to have to say that Andrew really pissed me off. Some mornings it doesn't pay to be a Democrat at The Bulwark.
The constitution details how slaves were to be counted for the census, and Native Americans weren’t automatically citizens until 1924 and weren’t guaranteed to vote until the 60’s, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe Alito the constitution it colorblind. So much for originalism.
I'm not so angry at Andrew because he wasn't really writing an article where the fact that he wouldn't mention White supremacy would be an omission. He is writing a news update for us, and we are well-read people.
However, we have really, really got to get White people to acknowledge that this is White supremacy, and I would love to start here, but it's an uphill climb.
A surprising acknowledgment of this comes from David French, who was blind to the every-day racism in the south until he and his wife adopted a child of color, and his neighbors and fellow parishioners showed their true selves.
We really are just going through the motions at this point. No matter what the outcome of the mid-term vote, just watch Republicans deny every loss. Watch them refuse to swear in any Democratic Party win in a red state. Watch as Trump uses DHS to seize ballots and voting machines to investigate and no one can be seated until that investigation is never done.
Republicans have shown everyone exactly who they are. They are racists. They are sexists. They are unethical and operate in bad faith. They protect rapists and pedophiles. There is no war they won’t engage in and no social service they won’t cut. There is nothing they won’t do for billionaires and strive to do as little as possible for the non-Epstein class. But none of that matters because 30% of the electorate will vote Republican even if it means voting for their own demise.
I have asked multiple times and I will ask again. How does anyone expect Texas and Louisiana to follow a Democratic President? They won’t. If Republicans lose power, I expect we will see the 2A folks come out of the woodwork to fight for their “rights.”
Respectfully, Andrew Egger lives in a fantasyland. Rs will not agree to anything, and even if the R Congress agreed, DJT will arise from his slumber to veto the legislation. Maybe someday, wiser heads will recognize the folly, but I doubt it.
Yeah, no way, Egger. War is upon us both overseas in the Gulf and at home in redistricting, neither by the public's preference. Blue-state legislatures are not pausing in some cases quite freshly minted anti-gerrymandering restriction lightly or even by choice. We agree on the ridiculousness of the maps emerging from the melee, but there aren't enough Indiana's to support your assertion of cross-party disarmament. Would that it were that simple.
I don’t understand why Egger seemingly thinks dems can’t both tit for tat the gerrymandering , while also still pushing for gerrymandering reform? I actually agree that the Calais decision has at least some merit, but after seeing all maga has done to this county Dems absolutely have to play hardball when it comes to drawing districts until republicans comes on board.It’s my opinion that unfortunately the general normie public just doesn’t care about the issue.
The central sin of our republic was slavery and the follow up - jim crow. The voting right act was a response. It is certainly fair to say the we cannot mandate x amount of black majority districts but the partisan gerrymandering is very much the racial opposite - one the court is unwilling to accept and remedy.
As a regular voter, partisan gerrymandering is an offensive power grab that Scotus ought to find a way to stop.
They are. Alito is a year older than me. We both are Jersey boys with immigration in our recent past. Why is Alito so angry at the post new deal order? Much better than before.
Change my Mind: The only reason Thomas got confirmed is because he proved that he assaulted Anita Hill. That's what got the Republicans to realize he was "one of the good ones."
Maybe a different SCOTUS, but not this one. This one is all about helping the GOP keep a permanent minority rule in the white Christian authoritarian mold.
SCOTUS, and many others in our modern-day overly commodified and transactional world, have forgotten that there’s a difference between intent and impact, and that both are equally problematic when it comes to identifiable groups losing their rights.
You commented that the central sin of our republic was slavery and Jim Crow. I would broaden that to say that it is (present tense) superiority and entitlement that manifest in the form of all the -isms. We’re seeing it here, in the Epstein crime ring, with Musk’s (and Epstein’s) ideas about breeding better humans, in the exalting of a particular brand of Christianity, in the corruption, etc. And so much of it by people who seem to mean well. Then just this week, the President emphasized blood and soil in his speech during the King’s visit.
I read an interesting article this week about Warren Buffet’s annual letters. In one, he warned of a duck who attributes the impact of higher waters to its own paddling skill. I think that’s kind of what we’re seeing with the court - thinking that if representation for previously marginalized groups has so improved it must be because we’ve solved the problems that led to marginalization in the first place.
SCOTUS seems to think gerrymandering is fine as long as the purpose of it isn’t to keep power away from black people but Democrats/Republicans, and both sides doing it renders it fair.
Andrew - can’t the Dems do two things at once? They have (see Keith Wresch above) tried to end gerrymandering. CA in 2008 created a pretty good system to un-gerrymander districts. It worked…until Repubs decided Dems wouldn’t bother to fight back when they played super hardball.
I happily voted for that commission in California and thought it worked well. I also voted for the referendum suspending it last year. I do mot regret either of those votes.
Me too on both! I happily watched my district in the SFV move from being part of a coastal district; Woodland Hills has so much in common with Malibu if you know the area (eye roll) to being a part of other valley districts. Maybe someday we can go back to this fairer way of districting…if we can beat back these cheaters and liars.
True! And it works a little better combined with Tarzana and Encino etc. It’s more of a valley ‘burb than a coastal town. Altho lots of Malibu Mediterranean acreage much like WH!
While it might appear that Sen. Cassidy (R-LA) was brave when he stood his ground against Trump by refusing to move Casey Means's nomination along, I see it as the last act of a dying man (politically speaking).
Cassidy's political career ended on Feb. 13, 2021, when he voted to impeach Trump. He then spent the last 5 years pretending that he was still a viable candidate in 2026. The primary polls have consistently shown that the man is either overly optimistic or delusional. Many polls have shown that he might not even make the runoff.
Multiple GOP senators have said the only reason they voted to confirm RFK, Jr. was that Cassidy assured them that it wouldn't be a total disaster for the country. So, I, for one, will be holding my applause. Goodbye, Sen. Cassidy. Go gentle into that good night (politically speaking).
If Democrats fail to counter the upcoming GOP gerrymandering efforts, and as a result what should be a Democratic Party takeover of the House, then the Never Trump movement will have failed, utterly. Just calling gerrymandering stupid, and failing to fight fire with fire is to surrender and will mean the Never Trump movement has failed. No checks on Trump for 2 more years is a very very bad outcome.
Mr. Egger, when you say "We should try for more than Gerrymandering Total War," who is "we" exactly? And what effect do you imagine "we should try" will have on the rabid GOP at this point.
Exactly. You cant pass gerrymandering reform at the federal level without controlling both houses of government and the white house. You’ll never win that again without fighting fire with fire.
If Democratic gerrymandering can be used as one weapon to destroy this current GOP, I am all for it. The truth is this GOP will fight any attempt to put limits on it's power. It is a metastasized stage four cancer hell bent on killing it's host, our democracy. Under Trump, it's also killing the global economy.
Maga Mike just sent the House off on another two week vacation. It couldn't be that he's avoiding an authorization vote on the Iran war, could it?
Good analogy! To continue it, the current Dem gerrymandering is like radiation or chemotherapy to kill that cancer. It's a horrible treatment that sickens the body but it is also effective at fighting the cancer.
Within minutes of the Louisiana v. Callais decision, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, the leading candidate to be Tennessee's next governor, posted a proposed redistricting map for the state that's even more absurd than the current map. It's expressly designed the carve up Memphis and destroy the one remaining Dem district in the state. Memphis vies with Detroit for the title of largest majority-Black city in the country. This map to disenfranchise those voters, which has now been endorsed by the sitting governor and by Trump, is not just baldly partisan. It is grossly racist and 100% intended to be read as such.
This is why we cannot put any energy into making nice with Republicans in the gerrymander war THEY started. Peace talks only work when all parties are ready to have them, and the Republicans make it clear every day that they are not interested in peace.
Makes sense for Blackburn to post that; they’ve already carved Nashville up like a pizza, next up, Memphis. It’s a total coincidence that in screwing Democrats, they’re screwing black people, too.
I'm sure Blackburn and Bill Lee would defend themselves by saying so. The state has been terrorizing Memphis for years now. The racism is not subtle. And I think Blackburn's great sorrow in life is that she was born 200 years too late to be the mistress of a large plantation.
Oh Andrew, you can't possibly think there's any chance of getting Rs to vote for anti-gerrymandering legislation? Have you forgotten that T controlled their votes even when he wasn't in office? Have you forgotten that he is who's behind this current redrawing-districts madness? You think Ds just need to beg Rs to do the right thing, and then when the country goes totally to hell say, "Well at least we tried"???
Yes, what's happening is beyond awful. But if you want an alternative, you've got to come up w/ something that has a reasonable chance of actually happening, PLUS a back-up plan for if/when it doesn't.
Remember, the entire T regime is at huge risk if they allow free and fair elections. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing whatever they can to steal them all. Don't underestimate their desperation and ruthlessness.
Based on the new land rush in the South where they will erase the gains black voters and their elected office holders have made leads me to believe, no.
I wonder, I really do. I mean, it would certainly bother Benedict Arnold, that narrow minded simpleton. Adams? Washington? They'd be cool with it. Jefferson might get hella confused but he'd find a way to play politics.
Fighting hard not to just simply post, "Shaddup, Egger!" =)
But in all seriousness, I do agree. We can't just gerrymander and re-gerrymander ad infinitum. We need to get a majority, and then we need to pass durable anti-gerrymandering measures everywhere. Make gerrymandering air-tight illegal all over the country. Tit-for-Tat is the way to get us to that majority, but it is not the way we should proceed.
This is definitely one of the more confounding and infuriating things I've read in The Bulwark, because it just puts the onus to stop this insanity on the Democrats, as though there were anything we could do to stop it. Like saying if some insane person is repeatedly kicking you in the crotch, you should appeal to their reason to get them to stop.
I really don't know what we can do right now other than try to match them gerrymander for gerrymander to get a majority, as you suggest. Right now, we can't do anything legislatively, because nothing would make it out of the House, and if it did, nothing would make it out of the Senate and filibuster, and if it did, Trump wouldn't sign it, and if he did, the SCOTUS would likely rule it an unconstitutional federal imposition on state-run elections if some red state decided to challenge it. And that whole chain of reasoning makes me think we won't be able to do anything about it unless we A) Get majorities in both houses of Congress, B) Win the presidency, C) Eliminate the filibuster, and D) Expand the SCOTUS, and all four of those must occur simultaneously. Easy, right?
Yes, this "Dems need to be better than that" mentality is what led Merrick Garland and Joe Biden to let Trump skate and look where that has led. It also reminds me of the tsk-tsking about Biden pardoning his son before he left office but my God, does anyone doubt that this administration would have already brought charges against him if that hadn't occurred?
Andrew is not wrong that this is a terrible place to be for our democracy. We should pass anti-gerrymandering laws in every state. But we won't because Republicans don't want them. This Republican party is a cancer destroying our country and that calls for some nasty chemo. Very sad and very disheartening but very true.
You could have stopped at "The Republican party is a cancer" and still be not wrong. Chemo is a good comparison of what we are going to need to do to stop it, but don't forget that chemotherapy is only the first part of the treatment.
The important bit, after you poison it back, is to cut it out and kill it.
more like shock treat the pool to knock back the algae
Well, this is maybe the electoral and legislative 'medicine' we have to take to to remedy the sorry situation we find ourselves in. As KO observes, cancer is bad, chemo is not fun, but you do what you gotta do.
Floridians passed a constitutional amendment in 2010 that banned partisan gerrymandering. This law, known as Fair Districts, is part of our state Constitution.
Long story short, Gov. Rhonda Santis appointed 6 members to the 7-member Florida Supreme Court. In response to a lawsuit brought by Rhonda, that court overturned a part of Fair Districts last year.
Now Rhonda & the Republican Florida Legislature just passed new, extremely partisan maps that ignore the Fair Districts requirements completely, figuring that the Florida Supremes will uphold it in light of the U.S. Supremes ruling from this week.
In other words, Rhonda and his Republican cohorts just aimed a giant middle finger at Floridians.
And to your point, it would not matter if every state passed anti-gerrymandering laws. In red states, Republicans would just laugh at it.
P.S. Rhonda Santis has disrespected my values every day of his governorship, so I take every opportunity to disrespect him; hence "Rhonda Santis."
Agree wholeheartedly.
Really tired of hearing anti-trumpers whinge on about how Democrats should TRY to set right the wrongs their own party have inflicted on the whole country and the world.
It was all sunshine and roses when Raygun started his tax cutting spree and talking up trickle down. Both Bushs' getting us into forever wars, shooting up the deficit, leaving messes for the next Dem president to clean up. When Dems get in power these same republicans beseeching the Dems to save them, start speechifying about the deficit and socialism.
Right now we fight with the weapons at hand. And if and when we get back into power our president and lawmakers are going to have to govern a whole different way. There is no going back to the status quo. And republicans have their party to thank for that.
Hear, hear!
This stupidity penned by Egger makes me want to discount literally every single thing he ever wrote. All I can think of is the memof the dog sipping coffee while fire rages around him and he says :everythings fine" or whatever
It really is overwhelming to think about how much we must win. But we cannot stop believing it's possible.
Any time you ask yourself if you should let Republicans and conservatives win, ask yourself if you believe that slaves thought that their life under the south was worth living, because under the Republican regime, that's all anyone will ever be allowed to be, because anything else is a threat to their superiority.
Then ask yourself if you believe that Republicans would allow you to live and let live if there was any kind of fence that kept you apart, or if they would tear down any obstacle to you being as oppressed as they are by the systems they have created and worshiped, literally.
This is what I hear in my mind whenever someone says, "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative." Yeah... So you're okay with me existing as long as I sit down, shut up, and don't cost you any money.
If by confounding you mean "dumb", then yes, yet it is. This appears to have been written by some modern day Rip Van Winkle who fell asleep sometime in the mid-90's and just woke up yesterday. If Trump excels at anything it is forcing you between two bad choices. In this case it is fight fire with fire and burn the house down, or stand for your morals and fight with one hand tied behind your back. I'm sorry, but those are the choices. Wishing it were different won't make it so. Of all places, The Bulwark should know this by now.
Very easy, Don. Just as easy as getting the President to act like a reasonable head of the Executive whose only interest is the welfare of the American people, or, hell, just the welfare of the fools that elected him.
I am very not happy that Louisiana suspended an election over this.
I see a future of entrenched fascist states where only the people who attend the correct churches can vote, balanced by somewhat more democratic states who support the fascism financially.
Wait, I'm getting news that I'm not describing the future, but the past AND the future. Yuck.
Well, I tell you true that I was feeling that already when I left Pennsylvania back in 2018. I felt I had to "play along" and allow my landlord to believe my husband and I were "God-fearin' Christians" in order to be offered a lease and "good, right-thinking people" to get the guy who was paid to plow our impossibly long driveway to get us out when snowed in. It's a goodly part of why I emigrated.
I am horrified that Louisiana was allowed to stop an election when people had already voted. But who do I think "allowed" it? I mean, it's not like there's a court that could order it to go forward if the Supreme Court was against it.
I would truly love if the Supreme Court opinion was correct and we no longer needed racial gerrymandering to make voting equal in the US South. I want to live in that post-racist country. But the United States is not there yet. And it's starting to look like it never will be.
Nothing that was born of slavery can ever really see past its own origins.
I LIVE in Louisiana. I am outraged, but not surprised, that our foul governor, who is almost as stupid as his Dear Leader, suspended an ongoing election so they can gerrymander people of color out of existence. It won't be "people" who blah-blah, it will be white men. The same assholes who were in charge 250 years ago and compromised on slavery.
Meanwhile, over in Alabama, Florida Man Tuberville has announced that districts should be redrawn "to reflect the politics and values of Alabamians." Because, you know, people in Alabama who cast votes for Democrats are not Alabamians.
Dana Bash (look at this! Tim is recommending a Dana Bash book! WTF!) wrote a book released last year called “America’s Deadliest Election” which takes a deep dive into the post civil war 1872 Governor’s Election. It is a fascinating and horrifying look at Louisiana (and the South) just 150 years ago. I have to admit that I couldn’t put the relatively short book down. I think, if you pick it up somewhere - you can get a used copy for five or six bucks - you will think that the old bromide about history ‘echoing’ is true as can be.
Thanks for the book rec. Grateful in this unsavory moment that Heather Cox Richardson is a Civil War/Reconstruction specialist. If you want a chuckle, check out how her ever-expanding platform gets under Nate Silver’s brittle skin:
https://www.natesilver.net/p/what-is-heather-cox-richardsonism
Just read Silver’s overly long post. Lordy, he’s jealous of HCR!
Right? I hope all his data keeps him warm at night…
I tried to read it, but stopped halfway through. The man doth protest too much. I kept thinking, "Stick to statistics, Nate!". That's one Substack I won't be subscribing to.
I couldn't make it past a few paragraphs. Did Nate have a point beyond being jealous?
It’s hard to take him seriously after that. I’m tossing him in the Ezra Klein mansplainer pile.
I am down w/HCR and Nate Silver? Not so much is the nicest thing I can say…. Thanks!
I have read Bash's book. In one sitting. I too recommend it heartily.
This is why I think America doesn’t have universal healthcare. Racists don’t want to pay for blacks.
Canadians aren’t morally superior but in the 1960s the population was mostly white. Universal healthcare was an easy sell.
Same with Europe.
Racists look in the mirror - and hate themselves too! I take your point, Frau K. But the selfishness is the point with Americans, racist or otherwise. They’re all so f’n afraid somebody might get something MORE than they get, and that therefore they’re getting screwed somehow. They (WE!) can’t see past our own noses.
Discouraging!
Call off the election!!!!! We haven't rigged it sufficiently...Oh, and remember to re-elect Gov Landry next time at the polls. Because I am working for you.
Not a great look.
While the suspended election is not a good thing, it does provide clarity: the Supreme Court performed its latest evisceration of the VRA, and within hours an election was called off to better crush the voting power of Black people.
With such a simple and direct, "Given A, then B" chain of events, it's easier to make the case to the folks who, like Eggers, are hesitant to fight fire with fire.
Or so I hope
Nah, the "never Trump" Republicans just believe they will be able to take back power in the wake of Democrats spending their energy trying to put down the Cancer that is MAGA. It just serves as a reminder that like our forefathers before us failed to do after Appomattox, we must be certain to end the threat to liberty and democracy before we put down our arms, and not leave another Andrew Johnson to undo the efforts of Lincoln.
The real hope is to dilute the leftist vote. More Republicans! 😡
We can even give those fascist states a collective name: "The Republic of Gilead"
The Confederacy already exists though. I'm fine re-using the old name.
I didn't even think of that, maybe because so there are so many red states that were not part of the original Confederacy.
Ugh, yes, it expanded like bloat.
And flag.
Why honor the fascists with a name that implies their power has any kind of legitimacy? Calling those states the republic of anything flatters the worst people. As a Tennessean, I'm a citizen of the United States of America and refuse to be considered anything else. I believe there was a war fought over this.
If we had won it, then it wouldn't have taken another century for black people to vote, and they wouldn't have had that right taken away again in less than a century.
We lost the civil war, we can say that with perfect clarity now, not because we lost the battle, or because we lost the fighting, but because we refused to take away the power from the Epstein class that existed then, and has continued to exist since. So now we have to fight it again.
‘Animal Farm’ meets ‘1984’ indeed, Kate
No one, other than a Louisiana Republican, can be happy about the state's suspension of its election to re-
gerrymandering (oops, redraw Congressional districts) to conform with the latest SC travesty. On the other hand, what else could we expect? The Republican Party discarded any sense of fair play about forty years ago.
It feels like MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).
Because it is. The only way out of this is national anti-gerrymandering laws and we’re not going to get there until the next civil war is over. Republicans do not care that they are being disgusting pieces of shit - they want power and don’t care how they get it or maintain it. We keep saying that the mask has dropped, but I don’t think we have truly seen how depraved Republicans (politicians and voters) will get.
I do tend to agree with you. Republicans are not ashamed. They have duped their constituents into believing that the Democrats are "evil" and "ruined the country". Meanwhile, they pick their teeth with the dried-up bones of their constituents' farms and small businesses and livelihoods. They are proud they are playing dirty to defeat us.
Perhaps Andrew is feeling his vote for the Virginia gerrymander was a little like voting for Netanyahu. You feel some fight is necessary, but how do you keep it from getting out of hand? In the words of Santayana: "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." Our aim is restoring the health of democratic and constitutional governance.
I voted for both original California redistricting commission and yes, on last year’s referendum, and I do not regret either vote. For the record I was happy with the commission and had no objections to its continuance. I do, however, feel a bit of a dupe for somehow believing that states adopting fair commissions would lead to them becoming the norm across the country. I am also tired of why it is only Democrats who must kick the tires and make noises about good governance. I would really like to know what will bring Republicans back to the table of compromise and make them willing to contemplate doing something for the good of the country.
"I would really like to know what will bring Republicans back to the table of compromise and make them willing to contemplate doing something for the good of the country."
You and me both. The only time I see a Republican do the right thing is when they plan to retire, after reliably doing the wrong thing for the last ten years.
I would like for Egger to address this point. I get his disgust with the gerrymander wars, but why must the Dems capitulate?
Your very last sentence made me chuckle. So I thank you for that Don!
And even then it's rare to see one do the right thing.
That ship has sailed. "Conservatives" in my youth meant George Wallace and the jackasses who followed, implementing the "Southern Strategy". The Republican Party purposely turned itself into a machine for fomenting hatred among the working class in order to control the electoral votes in the South. I didn't believe they had any inclination to do anything for the good of the country or the working people who live here. When they talked about "smaller government," they meant taking help away from poor people or not forcing corporations to stop polluting or provide safety equipment for their employees.
Truth!
I appreciate this comment and your other lengthy comment today. We all feel in our bones that the election of Trump signals the abandonment by huge swaths of the country of the ideals that make democracy function. Restoring those ideals, if it is to succeed at all, will be the work of many many years. In the meantime, I think it wise to keep in mind principles like proportionality-in-response so our goals are not lost in the rush to escalate.
Wait, BACK to the table? I don’t think I remember a time in my life where they were present at the table in the first place. This didn’t start with Trump, Trump just let took away whatever few remaining restraints they felt like they had which forced them to compromise. Their entire strategy since I was a child was “oppose democrats no matter what.”
The Republican party is not going to be a partner in good governance until there is accountability that results in a complete overhaul of the party. It will have to transform into something completely new. The only good faith disagreement that is happening as far as policy is concerned is between the moderate and progressive flanks of the democratic side. I would like to see more conservative/moderate Dems run as Republicans, take over the party, and hand the keys to the Democratic party leadership to the progressives. That is the only way in which I can see a a future where both parties work on behalf of the people, and we will generally be in good hands regardless of who wins. After 2.5 more years of Donald Trump and MAGA continuing down the path of destruction, I don’t think it’s as far-fetched of a scenario as it might seem.
Yup. I get it.
I think this might be an issue about both gerrymandering and trust.
I live in California. I voted for the bipartisan commission back in the day. I voted for ranked choice voting. Gerrymandering is clearly bad! It is objectively good if more people feel they are represented.
That said, I am furious that my act of goodwill was repaid with efforts to do literally the opposite in other parts of the country and will be so again. I completely distrust the republican establishments in red states.
I understand that, especially with this decision, this may get worse. I also understand that a cost has to be extracted to change behavior. No behavior changed when California or other blue states did the right thing. The conclusion, therefore, is that another course must be taken.
The right framing of this is not tit-for-tat is bad. The right framing is tit-for-tat is an optimal game theory strategy to keep your opponent from defecting all the time!
Also, if I'm going to get f**ed by congressional republicans, I want it to hurt them while they do it. As JVL would say, let's choose the wrench.
Amen! 🔧
I'm all for an anti-gerrymander bill, my own purple state was gerrymandered to the right for a decade until voters changed things. At the same time, the GOP understands that their only shot is through entrenching minority rule. So what do we do while they stall and negotiate? We have to respond.
Agreed.
The tit-for-tat response is clearly situational, where we need to do what we need to do, to save what we want to save.
In war--arguably our current situation--one will be called upon to do things one would rather not do and would never do in ordinary circumstance. Returning fire, with an intent to take someone out, is the appropriate response when being shot at on the battlefield.
I might add, that as normal people, these will be traumatic choices. People go to battle, do horrible things. When it is over, they will do their best to return to normalcy, knowing that they're unlikely to get there. The stain of these fights will live with us all for a long time. This is a just and right cause and, as many have done before us, these are the burdens we must bear to keep what we value.
But that's the problem we're left with - gerrymandering ad infinitum. Look, I get it. Our system was designed largely on the honor system. And for the most part, our politicians previously operated that way, so we were willing to overlook the instances where politicians bent the rules or took minor advantage of loopholes. And we were fine with it. I live in Illinois, and I don't remember anyone saying back in 2010 "boy, I'm really disturbed at the way Illinois is rigging the map.
Put simply, we turned a blind eye to relatively minor shenanigans because they were exactly that: relatively minor.
Then comes Trump, who decided to ignore rules others bent, and drove a semi-truck through every loophole he can find. Other presidents fired off a questionable pardon or two on their way out the door? Why wait, and why deal in small numbers? 'm just going to pardon anyone willing to line my coffers whenever the hell I want. We used to gerrymander every decade? Again, what's the holdup? If gerrymandering is okay, it's okay no matter when you do it.
Thus, while I agree the democrats need to realize there's no point taking the moral high ground if it means getting your @$$ kicked on the regular, the problem I see is that power is easy to grab, and impossible to give up.
Right now, sane conservatives, moderates, and the left are forming a coalition to combat a threat coming from the right, and I love this for us. But what happens if a threat comes from the left? It's not to hard to imagine. Go back 20 years, and most people would probably tell you if a talented, populist demagogue - which Trump certainly is, even if he can't spell UAE even if you spotted him the first two letters - rose to political prominence from either party, it would be from the Dems.
Bottom line: there's no dispute the anti-Trump coalition has been painted into a corner. But let's not kid ourselves - we're scattering loaded guns everywhere, and someone is going to pick one up.
TLDR: "He who fights with monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you".
If we accept that elections and election procedures are controlled by the states under the principle of limited sovereignty and Federalism, then it is unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit gerrymandering throughout our country.
I am opposed to gerrymandering. My hope is that every state would establish non-partisan or bipartisan commissions to examine and adjust voting districts based on current census results and that adhere with the principles of the Voting Rights Act.
Gerrymandering depends on the flawed belief that voters within any given district will always vote for candidates of a certain political party.
Florida voters DID vote against gerrymanders, how did that work out for them? The whole premise of stopping it is flawed.
Apparently, DeSantis based his newly gerrymandered map on the potential SCOTUS ruling in the Louisiana voting rights case and most Republican legislators said nothing while voting for it, regardless of the state Constitution.
My guess is that (quite literally) the jury is not out on this.
Yeah, true. I did forget that the states are in control of their elections. That said, I fear for the states in the South because I do not think their election commissions have fairness at heart. Hell, I don't know what to suggest then. A new Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court can strike down?
It's been suggested that AI might be a help in creating equitable districts, just like it has been a help unraveling chemicals and re-raveling them into medicines.
Yeah no. Equity is a qualitative thing, not a quantitative one. I have no confidence that whoever is doing the inputing into AI has any concept of that.
What do you mean by qualitative?
California's redistricting rules look for a "community of interest". From the law: "A community of interest is a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates."
I think that is a qualitative thing. Let's just say I have no confidence that AI can really assess whether there is a community of interest, especially in close cases.
I like that, except that when community of interest extends to people wanting to be represented *as*members of a race or ethnicity, it's a can of worms. How about if Ai were instructed to go as far as socio-econmic factors, but no farther?
AI could probably crunch numbers to do that. But then humans would have to come in to do the rest. Community of interest in terms of a common racial or ethnic background is the thing that gets blown up by "cracking" a group to put them in different districts so they don't have the collective power to vote in a candidate. This happens in urban areas in particular where somehow a minority community is together geographically gets cut in half or more pieces...into different districts.
Egger is apparently a Bulwark squish. Let's hope he doesn't become our In-House Fetterman.
I would like to point out that Democrats have kicked the tires on anti-gerrymandering and even passed a bill that included a ban on partisan gerrymandering on March 8 2019 and again on March 3 2021. Neither of these bills went anywhere because Senate Republicans weren’t interested. If you look at the states which passed independent redistricting commissions most were either blue or purple states with the exception of Florida but that was back in 2010 when the state was still electing Democratic presidents and senators. The state under Ron DeSantis has done everything to reverse what the voters passed. The failure of the good governance crowd and those working against gerrymandering failed to make their case convincingly Republicans. At the moment those arguments have lost the day, and hopefully not for ever, but they will need to convince Republicans and red states why that matters, and have to accept responsibility that their arguments in that regard failed.
This is a well-put version of an argument I think Democratic politicians and their voters should actively push against. Yes, Democrats tried to ban partisan gerrymandering at the federal level in 2019 and 2021--as part of the For the People Act, a Democratic elections omnibus that was never seriously intended to get Republican buy-in. This does not give them a free pass to give up on the issue at the federal level permanently. There are other potential anti-gerrymandering proposals under the sun!
How do you pass a federal anti-gerrymander law if you let them wipe out 19 Black seats in the south and don’t respond in kind where you have power, Andrew?
And yet had Republicans wanted to engage something likely could have been worked out. Look, I live in California and voted for the redistricting commission in 2008 but also voted yes on the referendum last year. I liked and still like the commission. There had been no constituency for doing away with or suspending it, and Democrats in the state weren’t truing to do away with it until the national political reality changed. At this point I feel a bit like a dupe for thinking that states as laboratories could, by making these commissions work, change gerrymandering across the country. The problem is that those who pushed for these sorts of good governance lost the argument in Republican lead states. Rather than lecturing those of us who have believed and voted for these measures, please tell us what would it take Republicans to go along with it, and work on convincing them to back anti-gerrymandering measures as that is where the real work is.
Well said Keith. That would have been a more constructive framing than churlish Dem bashing.
That said, what would you suggest Dems do to get buy-in on The Redistricting Reform Act of 2025 (S. 2885/H.R. 5449)?
Shout-out to my Sen Padilla & CA Rep Lofgren for introducing the legislation.
I am honestly not sure because there doesn’t seem to be much incentives to bring Republicans back to the table at the moment. But some of that may change if November goes very badly for Republicans, and particular what direction Hispanic voters in states like Texas and Florida go. I am not sure the coalitions current voting patterns will stay the same going forward.
Re: Florida, Trump plans to bring the Cuban-American vote back into the Republican fold when he invades Cuba right before the midterms.
Are you trying to tell everyone here that you honestly believe that there could possibly be an anti-gerrymandering bill that could gain Republican Congressional, Executive, and Supreme Court approval? You truly believe this??? After everything we have seen?, after Florida decided to go against the will of their voters? I find it implausible that you really think this could happen.
Mr. Egger:
I had to wait several days to comment in order to quiet my consternation at this sentence of yours:
"Still, there’s a reasonable argument to support Justice Samuel Alito’s conclusion that the way some courts had chosen to apply the VRA over the years had become preposterous—finding that if a state’s population could support a racial gerrymander creating a certain number of majority-minority districts, it was bound by law to do so."
Please give me just one example of a state with too many majority-minority districts. I don't believe you (or Mr. Alito) can do so.
With this sentence, you appear to suggest that you somehow missed learning about the long, bloody American history of the struggle for civil rights. And the decency and integrity that finally prompted the VRA and its goal of fair and equitable representation.
As Ronald Reagan said,
"The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished. To protect all our citizens, I believe the Voting Rights Act should and must be extended."
Respectfully Yours,
Mrs. Peabody Jones
Excellent!
It really does seem to be true that one party tries to actually govern and the other party isn't remotely interested in actually governing. Are there exceptions to these rules on both sides? Of course, but from a plurality/majority perspective, it's clear that the Dems by and large want to govern, and the Repubs by and large just want to stay in power by any means necessary. Unfortunately, since the Repubs are in control right now, and the rules they play by are, well, there don't seem to be any rules anymore, everyone else is forced to play just as dirty until we get back to some semblance of normal. Which I hope happens.
Stuart Stevens book, It Was All a Lie, is a great read and really opened my eyes.
Trump does destroy everything he touches.
One of his most notable accomplishments.
Great comment. I’d also add that the SCOTUS (unsurprisingly) paved way for this by refusing to take up the partisan gerrymandering cases earlier this decade to restrict it. (Too busy on their big prize of killing the VRA)
We could easily support non-biased voting commissions to build balance districts.
But as David Frum perfectly stated, ‘when conservatives can no long win elections, they won’t give up on conservatism, they will give up on democracy’.
It does seem as if that day is lost, for now, perhaps not forever. If the Republicans with the recent Supreme Court decision really do believe in the anti-discrimination, equality and fairness arguments they have launched against affirmative action, against wholistic college admissions, and against majority minority congressional districts, then perhaps they could be persuaded to accept the use of geometric/arithmatic models for creating congressional districts.
Forget about so-called bi-partisan election commissions -- and forget entirely about the concept of community either in its ethnic sense or in its sense of political entity through incorporation of towns and cities. Divide each state into the required number of congressional seats by converging blobs of equal population.
I did this using Grok and Chat tools the other day for the frequently contested state of Wisconsin. Both came up with a fairly handsome looking map -- and in one case it did so honoring county boundaries when possible. Yes, in the densest areas of population you could possibly end up with a majority minority district by default, but not necessarily. Numeric maps would truly reflect the principle of one person, one vote.
As it stands, neither party would go for this at the moment, with Republicans fearing they would be overwhelmed, and Democrats screaming that minority districts must be retained.
I hope it is not lost forever as partisan gerrymandering is incompatible with the goals of fair representation.
"Still, there’s a reasonable argument to support Justice Samuel Alito’s conclusion that the way some courts had chosen to apply the VRA over the years had become preposterous—finding that if a state’s population could support a racial gerrymander creating a certain number of majority-minority districts, it was bound by law to do so."
This is why The Bulwark, and Andrew Egger specifically, sometimes falls short; returning to their conservative foundations as a way of making excuses for an racist decision by Alito and the corrupt supreme court. Democrats have long supported federal law to eliminate gerrymandering, and blue states are the only ones who have actually passed laws to support fair maps. Fact: forming minority districts is NOT "preposterous;" because if there was no gerrymandering those districts would have formed organically. The "crack and pack" form of gerrymandering practiced by the south eliminates any chance of that happening, and the VRA was written to prevent it from happening. So, no, there is no "reasonable argument" to support Alito's racist conclusion. Unless that argument is to eliminate all gerrymandering.
Oh and Andrew - democrats are not giving up, and we are STILL the only ones talking about eliminating gerrymandering. Perhaps you should join us.
Also, even if you can find some "preposterous examples" of how the courts have applied the VRA in the past, Alito's decision sets such a high bar for section 2 that it's now effectively impossible to apply it at all. That's pretty far from a reasonable solution. Also do we actually trust Republican legislatures to prudently go after only the majority-majority districts Andrew thinks are preposterous? Obviously not. Alito gave them the license to erase every single one and we (pro-democracy forces) shouldn't help cloak Sam Alito in any kind of reasonability or legitimacy. It minimizes the overall damage this decision will do to multiracial democracy.
Racism is behind us. Ridiculous statement.
It’s OK for immigration enforcement to just grab a person that speaks a different language has brown or black skin or has an accent and then you can sort it out later. Shameful
Cui bono? In all these cases the Supreme court is ruling in ways that benefit white identity. Race in admissions for private institutions that might result ins someone of color taking a spot that should have been white: nope. Making sure black voters electoral power isn’t hobbled by the white majority with a history of systemic racism: nope. Black and brown people being plucked off the street based on racial characteristics: you betcha!
Of course this has always been the *natural* state in this country only now with a fig leaf of how colorblind we are.
We've never been colorblind and it is ridiculous to pretend that now that the white supremacists are in charge, racism is behind us. I do have to have to say that Andrew really pissed me off. Some mornings it doesn't pay to be a Democrat at The Bulwark.
The constitution details how slaves were to be counted for the census, and Native Americans weren’t automatically citizens until 1924 and weren’t guaranteed to vote until the 60’s, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe Alito the constitution it colorblind. So much for originalism.
I'm not so angry at Andrew because he wasn't really writing an article where the fact that he wouldn't mention White supremacy would be an omission. He is writing a news update for us, and we are well-read people.
However, we have really, really got to get White people to acknowledge that this is White supremacy, and I would love to start here, but it's an uphill climb.
A surprising acknowledgment of this comes from David French, who was blind to the every-day racism in the south until he and his wife adopted a child of color, and his neighbors and fellow parishioners showed their true selves.
Ime, that is usually how it works with Republicans. Until it affects them *personally*, they often do not see things that are harmful to others.
He sadly acknowledges that was the case in regards to him and racism.
Yes.
Thank you justice kavanaugh for setting that in play. People used to call that racial profiling. I guess the supremes can call it anything they like.
And off to the Congo for those Afghans who helped US soldiers!
We really are just going through the motions at this point. No matter what the outcome of the mid-term vote, just watch Republicans deny every loss. Watch them refuse to swear in any Democratic Party win in a red state. Watch as Trump uses DHS to seize ballots and voting machines to investigate and no one can be seated until that investigation is never done.
Republicans have shown everyone exactly who they are. They are racists. They are sexists. They are unethical and operate in bad faith. They protect rapists and pedophiles. There is no war they won’t engage in and no social service they won’t cut. There is nothing they won’t do for billionaires and strive to do as little as possible for the non-Epstein class. But none of that matters because 30% of the electorate will vote Republican even if it means voting for their own demise.
I have asked multiple times and I will ask again. How does anyone expect Texas and Louisiana to follow a Democratic President? They won’t. If Republicans lose power, I expect we will see the 2A folks come out of the woodwork to fight for their “rights.”
Yesterday, Hegseth refused to rule out the idea of troops at polling stations.
I abhor violence, but when I saw him smirking, I wanted to punch his face.
This ☝. Preach, brother.
Thank you. Much better said than my "Andrew really pissed me off". :)
If we elect a Democratic President, the Supreme Court will re-enact Bush v. Gore to get the result they want again.
Respectfully, Andrew Egger lives in a fantasyland. Rs will not agree to anything, and even if the R Congress agreed, DJT will arise from his slumber to veto the legislation. Maybe someday, wiser heads will recognize the folly, but I doubt it.
Yeah, no way, Egger. War is upon us both overseas in the Gulf and at home in redistricting, neither by the public's preference. Blue-state legislatures are not pausing in some cases quite freshly minted anti-gerrymandering restriction lightly or even by choice. We agree on the ridiculousness of the maps emerging from the melee, but there aren't enough Indiana's to support your assertion of cross-party disarmament. Would that it were that simple.
I don’t understand why Egger seemingly thinks dems can’t both tit for tat the gerrymandering , while also still pushing for gerrymandering reform? I actually agree that the Calais decision has at least some merit, but after seeing all maga has done to this county Dems absolutely have to play hardball when it comes to drawing districts until republicans comes on board.It’s my opinion that unfortunately the general normie public just doesn’t care about the issue.
The central sin of our republic was slavery and the follow up - jim crow. The voting right act was a response. It is certainly fair to say the we cannot mandate x amount of black majority districts but the partisan gerrymandering is very much the racial opposite - one the court is unwilling to accept and remedy.
As a regular voter, partisan gerrymandering is an offensive power grab that Scotus ought to find a way to stop.
Scouts is part of the problem.
They are. Alito is a year older than me. We both are Jersey boys with immigration in our recent past. Why is Alito so angry at the post new deal order? Much better than before.
But the conservative majority is mostly white and Thomas got his, so it's time to pull the ladder up.
Thomas pulled the ladder up behind him long before he hit the Supreme Court. I saw this coming after both Roberts and Thomas were confirmed.
Change my Mind: The only reason Thomas got confirmed is because he proved that he assaulted Anita Hill. That's what got the Republicans to realize he was "one of the good ones."
Maybe a different SCOTUS, but not this one. This one is all about helping the GOP keep a permanent minority rule in the white Christian authoritarian mold.
SCOTUS, and many others in our modern-day overly commodified and transactional world, have forgotten that there’s a difference between intent and impact, and that both are equally problematic when it comes to identifiable groups losing their rights.
You commented that the central sin of our republic was slavery and Jim Crow. I would broaden that to say that it is (present tense) superiority and entitlement that manifest in the form of all the -isms. We’re seeing it here, in the Epstein crime ring, with Musk’s (and Epstein’s) ideas about breeding better humans, in the exalting of a particular brand of Christianity, in the corruption, etc. And so much of it by people who seem to mean well. Then just this week, the President emphasized blood and soil in his speech during the King’s visit.
I read an interesting article this week about Warren Buffet’s annual letters. In one, he warned of a duck who attributes the impact of higher waters to its own paddling skill. I think that’s kind of what we’re seeing with the court - thinking that if representation for previously marginalized groups has so improved it must be because we’ve solved the problems that led to marginalization in the first place.
SCOTUS seems to think gerrymandering is fine as long as the purpose of it isn’t to keep power away from black people but Democrats/Republicans, and both sides doing it renders it fair.
Andrew - can’t the Dems do two things at once? They have (see Keith Wresch above) tried to end gerrymandering. CA in 2008 created a pretty good system to un-gerrymander districts. It worked…until Repubs decided Dems wouldn’t bother to fight back when they played super hardball.
I happily voted for that commission in California and thought it worked well. I also voted for the referendum suspending it last year. I do mot regret either of those votes.
Me too on both! I happily watched my district in the SFV move from being part of a coastal district; Woodland Hills has so much in common with Malibu if you know the area (eye roll) to being a part of other valley districts. Maybe someday we can go back to this fairer way of districting…if we can beat back these cheaters and liars.
Woodland Hills and Malibu are both geographically and culturally distinct, though close proximity on a map.
True! And it works a little better combined with Tarzana and Encino etc. It’s more of a valley ‘burb than a coastal town. Altho lots of Malibu Mediterranean acreage much like WH!
While it might appear that Sen. Cassidy (R-LA) was brave when he stood his ground against Trump by refusing to move Casey Means's nomination along, I see it as the last act of a dying man (politically speaking).
Cassidy's political career ended on Feb. 13, 2021, when he voted to impeach Trump. He then spent the last 5 years pretending that he was still a viable candidate in 2026. The primary polls have consistently shown that the man is either overly optimistic or delusional. Many polls have shown that he might not even make the runoff.
Multiple GOP senators have said the only reason they voted to confirm RFK, Jr. was that Cassidy assured them that it wouldn't be a total disaster for the country. So, I, for one, will be holding my applause. Goodbye, Sen. Cassidy. Go gentle into that good night (politically speaking).
If Democrats fail to counter the upcoming GOP gerrymandering efforts, and as a result what should be a Democratic Party takeover of the House, then the Never Trump movement will have failed, utterly. Just calling gerrymandering stupid, and failing to fight fire with fire is to surrender and will mean the Never Trump movement has failed. No checks on Trump for 2 more years is a very very bad outcome.
Mr. Egger, when you say "We should try for more than Gerrymandering Total War," who is "we" exactly? And what effect do you imagine "we should try" will have on the rabid GOP at this point.
Exactly. You cant pass gerrymandering reform at the federal level without controlling both houses of government and the white house. You’ll never win that again without fighting fire with fire.
If Democratic gerrymandering can be used as one weapon to destroy this current GOP, I am all for it. The truth is this GOP will fight any attempt to put limits on it's power. It is a metastasized stage four cancer hell bent on killing it's host, our democracy. Under Trump, it's also killing the global economy.
Maga Mike just sent the House off on another two week vacation. It couldn't be that he's avoiding an authorization vote on the Iran war, could it?
Good analogy! To continue it, the current Dem gerrymandering is like radiation or chemotherapy to kill that cancer. It's a horrible treatment that sickens the body but it is also effective at fighting the cancer.
Within minutes of the Louisiana v. Callais decision, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, the leading candidate to be Tennessee's next governor, posted a proposed redistricting map for the state that's even more absurd than the current map. It's expressly designed the carve up Memphis and destroy the one remaining Dem district in the state. Memphis vies with Detroit for the title of largest majority-Black city in the country. This map to disenfranchise those voters, which has now been endorsed by the sitting governor and by Trump, is not just baldly partisan. It is grossly racist and 100% intended to be read as such.
This is why we cannot put any energy into making nice with Republicans in the gerrymander war THEY started. Peace talks only work when all parties are ready to have them, and the Republicans make it clear every day that they are not interested in peace.
Makes sense for Blackburn to post that; they’ve already carved Nashville up like a pizza, next up, Memphis. It’s a total coincidence that in screwing Democrats, they’re screwing black people, too.
I'm sure Blackburn and Bill Lee would defend themselves by saying so. The state has been terrorizing Memphis for years now. The racism is not subtle. And I think Blackburn's great sorrow in life is that she was born 200 years too late to be the mistress of a large plantation.
Oh Andrew, you can't possibly think there's any chance of getting Rs to vote for anti-gerrymandering legislation? Have you forgotten that T controlled their votes even when he wasn't in office? Have you forgotten that he is who's behind this current redrawing-districts madness? You think Ds just need to beg Rs to do the right thing, and then when the country goes totally to hell say, "Well at least we tried"???
Yes, what's happening is beyond awful. But if you want an alternative, you've got to come up w/ something that has a reasonable chance of actually happening, PLUS a back-up plan for if/when it doesn't.
Remember, the entire T regime is at huge risk if they allow free and fair elections. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing whatever they can to steal them all. Don't underestimate their desperation and ruthlessness.
Based on the new land rush in the South where they will erase the gains black voters and their elected office holders have made leads me to believe, no.
We only need a handful of Republicans to vote for this.
Imagine explaining any of this shit to the Founding Fathers.
A large portion would be grossed out that nonwhites and women are voting
I wonder, I really do. I mean, it would certainly bother Benedict Arnold, that narrow minded simpleton. Adams? Washington? They'd be cool with it. Jefferson might get hella confused but he'd find a way to play politics.