Bulwark Takes - The Redistricting Twist No One Saw Coming (w/ Dave Wasserman)

Episode Date: November 12, 2025

Tim Miller talks with Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman about how Democrats are quietly racking up wins in the redistricting wars—from Utah’s shock court ruling to key shifts in Virginia and California—and what it all means for control of the House in 2026.

Grab a coffee and discover non-stop action with BudMGM Casino. Check out our hottest exclusive. Friends of one with Multi-Drop. Once even more options. Play our wide variety of table games. Or head over to the arcade for nostalgic casino thrills only available at BetMGM. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connix Ontario at 1866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. But MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Less than an hour from downtown Toronto, you'll feel a world away with Durham Tourism's new discovery guide, open skies, explore day trip destinations, overnight getaways, and 129 must-try experiences in Durham region, from historic sites to starry nights and delicious days to downtown dates. Want to keep your luggage light and your dollars in Canada? Discover Durham region's open skies. To get your guide, visit durhamtourism.ca.ca slash discover. Hey, everybody. It's Tim Miller from the bulwark. I am here with the senior editor and elections analyst at Cook Political Report. Also a super nerd when it comes to redistricting and House districts and math and math and I wanted to bring them on here because there's been a ton of stuff happening in redistricting. And and in a rare case of like Democrats fighting and winning recently, like the Democrats have clawed back a lot of ground on this mid-decade. decade redistricting cycle with the recent news out this morning about a court win in Utah

that is going to give Salt Lake City a congressional seat for the first time in a while, really. So, Dave, you cited, well, actually, before we get into the states, why don't you just give us kind of a global, like, state of play, like, you know, where we were last year and then Texas, you know, makes the first move and kind of how things, how things stand. Republicans in the White House would not be pursuing a mid-decade redistricting war if they felt great about their chances of holding the House to begin with in 2026. And Democrats only need three seats from their current vantage point. There are 215 seats effectively. And so Republicans want to sandbag this, add some insurance policy against a blue wave. Now, the historical

average in the post-war era is that the President's Party loses 23 seats in midterms. But I think the old rules might not apply anymore, given the evisceration of competitive districts, not just from gerrymandering in recent years, but also the self-sorting of the American electorate into heavily red and blue places, which leaves a lot less purple turf to draw into competitive seats. So Democrats are contending with a small playing field of races to begin with, and Republicans are trying to play keep away. And even with the Texas redraw, Democrats had a chance. Now they've strung together a surprising string of victories. We have self-gerrymandered a lot. I like to bring that up a lot of times at the good governance

meetings with my pro-democracy folks is that gerrymandering is bad. And maybe after this, you know, race to the bottom here the next few years in 2030, we can get some federal rules or something to get rid of it. But a big reason for why we have fewer races right now, as you mentioned is like the humans, us humans have self, self-sorted us to such a degree. But, so let's look at some of these states. So you, here is your tweet this morning that caught my attention. You wrote between Ohio, Kansas, California and Virginia, and now this huge win in Utah, Democrats have strung together an impressive streak of victories over the past few weeks that have surprisingly pushed the mid-decade redistricting war closer to a draw.

I think folks that are viewing this are pretty familiar with what happened in Texas and how the California ballot initiative last week sort of offset that. So looking at these other three states you mentioned, Ohio, Kansas and Virginia, other four states, rather, Ohio, Kansas, Virginia, and Utah, just give us a quick update on what's happened in those places. Yeah, that's right. And look, two months ago, and we have a redistricting tracker at cookpolitical.com, I encourage everyone to go look at. I would have told you that Republicans were in position to net five to eight seats from redistricting before 2026, which meant that Republicans could basically triple their Cook. heading into the midterms. Today, I think it's more likely a low single-digit gain. The first piece of good news Democrats got was in Ohio, and we knew that Ohio was going to draw a new congressional map because, per their state constitution, the current one expires after four years, that

theoretically was going to give Republicans an opportunity to draw two Democratic districts into oblivion. But the threat of a petition drive, gathering 250,000 signatures to block a new gerrymander from taking effect, it really influenced Republicans to cut a deal that led to a map that made two districts a little worse for Democrats in Cincinnati and Toledo, but made a district in Akron slightly better for Democrats. So I count that as only like a half a seat gain for Republicans on net. Yeah. And shout out in Ohio. You should also mention this like the huge fight. I mean, again, where Democrats are out there like, we're thirsty. for fighters. We're unhappy that's happening in Washington. At a local level, it's a minority

leader Donnie Isaacson there that was like and others that kind of led this fight that got Republicans to back down and saved a seat or two there. Anyway, now going ahead to Kansas. That's true. And Kansas, we saw Republicans abandon their effort to draw Cherise Davids out of her seat. And then in the elections last Tuesday, we saw California. by an massive margin approved Prop 50, which gives Democrats an opportunity when between three and five Republican seats. It guarantees them at least three. I think they're probably going to pick up Darrell Issa's district, no matter where Darrell Issa runs in the San Diego area. And then the district that becomes a toss-up is David Valadeo's district in the Central Valley.

So unlike Texas, I should point out. One of the two Trump impeachers who are left. So I rarely. get a chance to shout out a Republican on here these days, but Validea was a Trump impeacher who has survived. That's true. And he's had to survive from, you know, against both the left and the right. But a difference between California and Texas, even though on its face, they offset each other, Democrats actually shored up a lot of their own vulnerable seats in California, including Adam Gray, in the Central Valley, Derek Tran, outside L.A. So in Texas, Republicans didn't really have vulnerable seats to begin with. Democrats, I think, you know, drew a map in California that serves

them both offensively and defensively. And then in Virginia, Democrats won not only the AG's race, which was in some doubt, but also a massive margin in the House of Delegates, 64 to 36. These victories should help them on a very tight timeline to put a constitutional amendment before voters to gerrymander the map in Democrats' favor. I think it's very likely Democrats can draw a nine-to-two map in Virginia, which would be a three-seat net versus today where Democrats have a six-to-five lead in the delegation. The most vulnerable Republicans in that scenario would be Jen Kiggins, John McGuire, Rob Whitman, and that would put Democrats in position to offset potential.

what Republicans are able to do in Florida and maybe Indiana. Now, North Carolina's map likely costs Democrats one seat, Missouri's map unless it's overturned by voters will cost Democrats one seat in Kansas City. So you add all of these up. And now Republicans are poised for a very minor gain from redistricting unless, for example, Virginia Democrats falter and they don't get a new map in Maryland either. But they did get a major victory in this Utah case. Yeah. So just laid it all out there and then we'll get to Utah. We'll put this on the screen because you put it for folks who are trying to follow all the states in the up and down. You tweeted quite clearly. You kind of look here at what you posted. You're basically looking

up from Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas, about a six-seat gain for Republicans, about a five-and-a-half seat gain from Democrats, you know, if you look at what the like the outcomes would be in California and Utah. So that's a net of nothing, basically zero to one for Republicans. And then you project out ahead, as you just mentioned, Florida and Indiana could do some redistricting that would help Republicans. Virginia, you mentioned as a biggest variable, but you just said Maryland. Also, Maryland could potentially offset that for the Democrats.

So what is the Florida and Indiana versus Virginia and Maryland, like, what's that total shakeout to if both sides maximized their, you know, gerrymandering advantage? Yeah, well, you know, Maryland Democrats, they tried to redistrict Andy Harris out of office right after the census. It was denied by a Maryland lower court. It could still face an uphill battle in the state Senate where the Democratic State Senate president doesn't seem to like the idea of revisiting. the map and then the state Supreme Court where Larry Hogan appointed a majority of those judges. And so Maryland would be a one-seat gain for Democrats, but it's not as likely as Virginia, perhaps, at this point. And then Indiana, J.D. Vance has made two trips to pressure Republicans to draw a new map. But I have to say, after Tuesday's results, Republicans might have second

thoughts about diluting many of their own districts. And I think that was clear in Kansas. In Indiana, to eliminate Frank Mervan in the Gary Hammond area, that would not be difficult for Republicans to do, but to eliminate Andre Carson in Indianapolis, which is a two to one, at least Democratic seat, then a lot of surrounding Republicans would have to take on those voters. I'm not sure in this climate, Republicans even want to dilute their districts down from Trump plus 20 to Trump plus 12. It has impacted their behavior. Like the wins last Tuesday impacts their behavior too because they get a little bit more scared about how they're redistricting in a worst case in a blue wave scenario might hurt some of the incumbents. That's right. And we should note that

there was a very clear pattern in Tuesday's results. You know, when you look at the House of delegates. Democrats won everything that was either a Harris district or Trump plus four and a half or less. And Republicans won every district that was Trump, four and a half and above. So it's not as if Democrats have made, you know, inroads into deep Republican territory. They have in some lower turnout special elections. But still, it's enough to give Republicans pause about taking on more Democratic voters because they're risk averse. If you're an R plus seven, you're looking at that, and you're like, boy, if the R plus four and a half went down this year, who knows what the economy looks like next year, you know, it just starts to get a little close for comfort

maybe. Exactly. No one wants to be in a two and a half point race, regardless. I mean, that forces you to raise and spend a lot of money. And then in Florida, where Governor DeSantis basically overruled the redistricting committees in his own party last time around in 2022 and imposed a 20 to 8 map. At the time, that looked like a really aggressive map for Republicans. Given how far right Florida has moved since then, it now looks like a good map for Democrats. And so if DeSantis and Republicans revisit that with minimal policing from the state Supreme Court, then they could eliminate up to three Democratic seats in my estimation. It would require some sacrifice on Republicans part in South Florida, but it's very possible they could do that.

So we're watching those days. The other place to watch is Louisiana because Republicans are hoping the Supreme Court will strike down Section 2 of the VRA in time for them to be able to push back their election calendar and impose a map that could cost Democrats either one or both seats they currently hold in the state. And they could certainly draw one down here that would carve out both potentially. depending on how aggressive they want to get. I want to get to the VRA next.

So that's where I was going. But just kind of sum up, assuming that the Democrats move forward in Virginia, even if Republicans did max out in Florida and Indiana, you're really looking at like an extra two or three seats from where there are now, which I could be meaningful, like you said, in a small field. But it becomes a much more manageable playing field for Democrats if they want to, you know, take back the House next. year to go from, you know, potentially how it looked in a worst case scenario was that they would have

to, you know, take out 12, 13 Republicans and now maybe it ends up more like five or six. And that before we get to the VRA part, does that feel right to you as a summary? That does. And Democrats have enough winnable seats in states that aren't going to be redrawing their maps that they could win the House by a decent margin. And by today's standards, a decent margin might be winning 225 seats, not 235 or four. How many Republicans are in Harris seats anymore that just is like the starting ground? Yeah, they're only three. Brian Fitzpatrick Pennsylvania, Mike Lawler in New York and Don Bacon, who's retiring in Omaha. And so, you know, Democrats are the favorites in that Omaha district. I think they're the underdogs against

Fitzpatrick, given how strong incumbent he is. They're probably an even shot against Mike Lawler. But we're really looking at the states that are still, that still have maps that are competitive. So Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, these are the places, and Iowa, these are the places where the House majority is going to be won or lost because they have multiple competitive districts. And take Pennsylvania, for example, you've got three Republican incumbents who are going to face tough races, Scott Perry, Ryan McKenzie, Rob Bresnahan, and Democrats have pretty strong recruits in all those districts. Arizona, where Juan Siskamani and Dave Schweikert's open seat are, and Tom Barrett and Michigan. So these are places where Democrats have a very narrow but very clear path to the majority. So you mentioned the VRA.

I talked this little bit on the podcast with Chris Hayes earlier, if folks can check that out. And I think that's the other big worry for the Democrats. It's essentially if the Supreme Court overturned the Voting Rights Act in next spring, next May's session, I assume you tell me if any of this is wrong, that none of the, even the RETA states would have time at that point to redistrict before 2026. It becomes an issue for 2028 potentially. I guess there's a chance that the Supreme Court could rule, though, earlier. and the winter and the non-traditional kind of winter session. And they just basically did this on the gay marriage grueling yesterday, just dismissing the Kim Davis's petition to overturn gay marriage.

If they were to move quicker, you mentioned Louisiana. I mean, like, what is a worst case scenario for Democrats? And what are you kind of hearing out there from folks as far as what states could potentially try to jam something through after a ruling on that. Well, I don't run SCOTUS blog, and I'm clearly a judicial legal legal. However, I'm sure the nerds in these states, though, I'm sure the Alabama redistricting nerds you hear from, though, or you're monitoring their election Twitter. So anyway, that's for sure.

But I think there is a difference between the Supreme Court declining to take up the gay marriage case, and then the timeline for them to issue a potential landmark ruling on Section 2 of the VRA. I don't expect that we would get it until late spring or early summer. That said, could you see the White House apply pressure to some of these southern states to redraw their maps in anticipation of the Supreme Court issuing a ruling? I haven't heard rumblings about that so far. And many of these states are about to open up their filing periods in, you know, just a matter of a month or two. So it is something to watch. Louisiana is the one state that does seem to be preparing for this possibility in time for 2026. But this gives the White House and Republicans an

opportunity to lay a groundwork for, for 2028. And it could mean the elimination of a dozen majority minority seats in the Deep South. I don't think it's hyperbole to call the potential apocalyptic for for majority black districts in those states. All right. Last thing, something that well, I guess maybe the Magipartisans can't be happy about, but something that the good governance people can be happy about that are maybe upset with some of the Democrats' efforts on redistricting and that the Democrats were concerned about the House could be happy about, which is that that aforementioned case in Utah. So that's a state ruling, I guess, that ended up, you know, overturning the partisan maps in Utah that had kind of pizied out from Salt Lake City, dividing up Salt Lake City so that,

you know, there would be four Republican districts now. The new map looks, I think, pretty clearly like it will be a three to one with a Democrat representing Salt Lake City. What What exactly happened there? And how can we just give that to happen everywhere in 2030? Because it seems like they're doing things right in Utah. Well, keep in mind, this has been a food fight in Utah for a very long time. And voters only very narrowly, by a fraction of a point, approved a ballot initiative that led to this unjerrymandering by a judge. Now, Republicans in the legislature are apoplectic.

And I think they are going to be raising hell about this ruling in the months to come. There's talk of impeaching the judge. So this could be a back and forth that goes on for years. So you're saying it's not all just like, it's not just all happy, happy joy, joy out there in Utah with a good governance and fair districts. Well, Utah has been the most Trump skeptical Republican state, but it is still a very very, pro-Trump state by the numbers, right? He won a solid majority of the votes in in 2024. So this is a place where Republicans have been, you know, unwound by a constitutional amendment that was very narrowly approved. And they're going to fight back against it. Perhaps they get their

way by 2028. But it's a state-level fight. And as we've seen the U.S. Supreme Court sidestep the issue of partisan gerrymandering, these fights are increasingly coming down to state courts. And in most cases, these state Supreme Courts have become extensions of partisan politics. That hasn't been the case in Utah. So it makes it a fascinating exception. All right. Dave Wasserman, overcook Political. Like you said, you can check out the redistricting tracker and the other race rankings, House race rankings, Senate race ranking.

I always say to partisans on either side, I mean, these days I'm hearing mostly from partisan. Democrats are asking, like, who do I support? How do I decide what candidates to go to? I always say go to the Cook political race rankings. Look at the candidates that are likely on your opposite party. So if you're a Democrat, go to the candidates that are in your likely House Republican races,

because those are the stretch seats. They might not get as much money from the national parties. And those, you know, are the candidates that maybe could use your support. So there you go. That's my, that's a, I use you guys for shorthand for people. I do want to make one more point because I think you raised something interesting. Please. About why, why don't other states pursue kind of logical redistricting in time for 2030? I am currently embarking on a research project, a fellowship that examines a middle ground for redistricting.

And it would seem logical to base. districts around geographic boundaries that already exist. For example, Salt Lake County can comfortably house one congressional district. That's what the judge decided. And in some states, that would work in Democrats favor, Exhibit A, Utah. But in other states, if you were to require that, and perhaps Tennessee, but in other states, if you were to require districts to be wholly within counties, let's say you forced districts in Illinois to be entirely within Cook County, that would hurt Democrats because they couldn't

stretch Chicago into rural downstate Illinois like they do today. So it would penalize one party in some states. It would penalize another party in the other states. And if both parties hate that solution, it might mean it's fair. Well, I'm glad you brought that up as a bonus because I'm for that. And I've always said that I was like someone there's, you get into a lot of nerdy arguments some of this. What is fair district and what is not a fair district? And to me, it's just like, look, man, I mean, as you mentioned, this is on the Democratic side. But if Nashville and

Salt Lake City don't have a rep, like, that's probably a sign that it's not a fair math, given how important they are to their states. But on the inverse of that, if there's a huge swath of Southern Illinois that doesn't have a rep either, because they're repped by somebody four hours north in Chicago, that's not fair

either. So I think that'd be a good way to look at it. That's Dave Wasserman. Check out cookpolitical.com and we'll be uh you bringing you back if any crazy shit happens between now and uh and the time of the filing's open all right i'm sure it will thanks tim all right thanks man