By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In Texas, a political battle is unfolding as Republicans, at the request of former President Trump, propose a redrawn congressional map that would likely add five Republican seats before the midterms. This move is viewed by Democrats as a scheme to rig the election and dilute the power of communities of color. Democrats have discussed tactics to try and prevent the bill from passing. This is occurring due to a Supreme Court ruling that allows partisan gerrymandering and the absence of federal legislation against it.
Read the original article here
“Unprecedented Power Grab”: Trump & Texas Try to Create 5 More GOP House Seats with New Gerrymander, that’s the core of the matter here.
First off, let’s be clear: this isn’t about Texas magically adding five more representatives to the House. The number of representatives each state gets is fixed by population, determined after each census. What’s happening is something more insidious: gerrymandering. Texas is redrawing its district maps, and the goal, very transparently, is to create the conditions for five more Republican victories in the House of Representatives. This is a blatant move to solidify GOP control.
The implications of this maneuver are significant, especially when considering the broader political landscape. It reflects a concerning trend of manipulating electoral processes for partisan gain. The strategy involves carefully reshaping district boundaries to either “pack” opposing voters into a single district, minimizing their impact elsewhere, or “crack” them, spreading them thinly across multiple districts so their influence is diluted. This allows the party in power to essentially choose their voters, rather than the other way around.
The use of computer modeling, as seen with projects like REDMAP, has made these gerrymandering efforts incredibly precise. Districts can be carved out to the point where neighbors on the same street may find themselves in different districts, all in the name of political advantage. This isn’t just about gaining a few seats; it’s about shaping the very fabric of representation, diminishing the voices of certain communities in the process.
Many argue that Texas’s move is particularly brazen, and they’re not wrong. They’re looking to maximize their advantage, and some people believe this might backfire. Some think the Hispanic vote and young men will not go in their favor. They’re playing a high-stakes game, and the potential for blowback is real. Others seem to think the opposite is going to happen.
And of course, this situation also calls attention to the role of the Supreme Court. Decisions like Citizens United v. FEC, Shelby County v. Holder, Rucho v. Common Cause, and Alexander v. South Carolina State have, in the view of many, made it harder to protect voting rights and ensure fair elections. The court’s stance on partisan gerrymandering – declaring it a “political question” beyond the reach of federal courts – has created an opening for this kind of manipulation.
It’s a tough pill to swallow, but the reality is that both Democrats and Republicans engage in gerrymandering. The difference here is that Republicans are doing it outside of the usual census year. The call to action from some is for blue states like California, New York, and Illinois to respond in kind, to “fight fire with fire” and play the same game. Some believe that the only way to counter this is by making these states turn blue.
The strategy to reshape the maps to achieve partisan gain isn’t new. It’s important to understand that there are rules and regulations governing how districts should be drawn to ensure fair representation. At the federal level, there are laws like the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. However, these don’t address partisan gerrymandering specifically.
At the state level, the landscape varies. Some states have independent commissions that draw maps, while others have banned gerrymandering through ballot initiatives. Yet, the system remains far from perfect. The question of fairness is a very relevant one. Many have concerns about the impact of such a strategy on the country’s long-term health and its democracy.
The potential for unintended consequences is significant. As the maps become more and more twisted to favor one party, the risk of alienating voters and fueling disillusionment increases. The risk of losing big increases the more you gerrymander. The more these actions are seen, the more likely voter turnout decreases. You’re left with a situation where the very foundation of democracy is being eroded.
So, what’s the takeaway? This latest move by Texas is not just a local issue; it’s a symptom of a larger, systemic problem. It underscores the need for vigilance, for challenging these practices, and for working to build a system where elections are truly fair, where the voices of all citizens are heard, and where political power isn’t decided before a single vote is cast. It is also a warning that we need to be ready to do anything.