Tangle - Virginia joins gerrymander war.

Episode Date: April 23, 2026

On Tuesday, Virginians voted 51.5%–48.5% to approve a constitutional amendment allowing the state to redraw its congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterms. The new map will shift several districts in Democrats’ favor, potentially turning the current 6–5 split to a 10–1 advantage. The referendum comes amid a broader mid-decade redistricting push by Democratic- and Republican-controlled states that began last summer in Texas, and it is facing a challenge in the Virginia Supreme Court. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!Our latest Suspension of the Rules.On our most recent episode, Isaac, Ari, and Kmele discuss the Virginia redistricting vote — and the gerrymandering war that surrounds it. Plus, a 30,000-foot view of the political landscape: Is Trump pivoting for the midterms? How are voters responding to the war and the economy? Are any cabinet members on the way out? Will Kmele finally have something to complain about?All will be answered in today’s episode!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: Would you support a redistricting effort in your state? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Russell Nystrom and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of our take. I'm your host today, senior editor, Will Kayback. Today we're going to be diving into the redistricting vote that just took place on Tuesday in Virginia, where voters seem to have approved a mid-decade redistricting plan that is expected to significantly shift the state's congressional districts in Democrats' favor, potentially turning a current six to five Democratic advantage into a 10-to-one advantage. Now, there are still some legal challenges pending that could upend the result. We're going to get into that a little bit more later, but for now, it does look like

Virginia Democrats will be successful in implementing this plan. So we're going to take stock of what this means how it fits into the broader gerrymandering wars that we've seen break out over the past year or so and how it could affect the 26 midterms and beyond. We're really excited to have today's take be written by our associate editor Russell Nystrom, making his my take debut. Russell's a Virginia resident and someone who has been following this referendum really closely. So he's got an on-the-ground perspective to share with you all. And we're really looking forward to featuring his voice today. Before we get into it, unfortunately, we have two corrections from yesterday's edition to share. Both of them came in the On This Day in History section, which is a newer section

that we've rolled out, and these corrections are definitely a note for us to be extra attentive in our fact-checking process in some of these new sections. But the first one was that we referred to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring as a novel, when it is, in fact, a non-fiction science narrative. Second, we misidentified Pete McCloskey as a U.S. Senator from California when he was, in fact, a U.S. representative. Both of these errors, again, very unfortunately, were missed in our fact-checking process. And as I said before, we're going to be paying some extra attention to these newer sections just while we get into the flow of adding them to our daily editions. And these are our 155th and 156th corrections in Tangle's 360 week history and our first corrections since April 15th.

We track these corrections and place them at the top of each edition in an effort to maximize transparency with readers. One final note on a much more positive note, we have a new episode of Suspension of the Rules Out. And in the new episode, Isaac, Ari, and Camille discussed the Virginia redistricting vote that we're covering today and the gerrymandering war that surrounds it across the U.S. Plus, they offer a 30,000-foot view of the political landscape asking questions like, is Trump pivoting for the midterms? How are voters responding to the war in Iran and the current U.S. economy?

Are any other cabinet members on their way out? And finally, will Camille finally have something to complain about? All of the above and more will be answered in today's episode, which you can check out on our podcast page and on video on YouTube. Check it out on our YouTube channel. All right, now I'm going to hand it over to John. for today's topic, and then we will get through what the right-left and Virginia writers are saying before Russell's take. John, over to you.

Thanks, Will, and welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, Navy Secretary John Phelan has left his position. Defense Secretary Pete Higgseth reportedly fired Phelan due to tension between the former Secretary and Pentagon leadership. Navy Undersecretary Hongka will now serve as acting Navy Secretary. Number two, the Trump administration is reportedly nearing a deal to loan Spirit Airlines up to $500 million in exchange for a potential stake in the company. Spirit is in the midst of its second bankruptcy process since 2024 and facing heightened financial pressure due to elevated jet fuel prices. Number three, Representative David Scott, the Democrat from Georgia, passed away at the age of 80. He was elected to the House in 2002 and was

running for a 13th term in 26. Number four, Jay Bottacharya, the acting head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, canceled the release of a study that reportedly showed COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduced the likelihood of emergency room visits and hospitalizations from COVID. Botacharya objected to the study's methodology, suggesting it misrepresented the vaccine's effectiveness. At number five, the Senate voted 50 to 48 to adopt a budget resolution, setting up a vote on a budget reconciliation package next month.

Republicans plan to use the process to fund immigration and customs enforcement and Border Patrol through 2029, which will require a simple majority to pass. Virginia yesterday voted to approve a new congressional map. This new map, one of the lot more blue, very likely, not a guarantee, but pretty likely, could give Democrats a 10 to one advantage in their House delegation. That would be a four-seat pickup compared to the old, more red map you see. On Tuesday, Virginians voted 51.5% to 48.5% to approve a constitutional amendment allowing the state to redraw its congressional map ahead of the

2026 midterms. The new map will shift several districts in Democrats' favor, potentially turning the current six to five split into a 10 to one advantage. The referendum comes amid a broader mid-decade redistricting push by Democratic and Republican-controlled states that began last summer in Texas, and it's facing a challenge in the Virginia Supreme Court. For context, in late July, President Donald Trump called on Texas lawmakers to redraw their congressional map ahead of the typical decennial redistricting cycle in an effort to gain additional Republican seats in the House. The state legislature approved the plan, prompting California to pursue its own redistricting to boost Democratic representation. Six states, including Virginia, have now implemented

new maps as a result of mid-decade redistricting, and several others are considering doing so. The Virginia referendum asked voters to vote yes or no on a constitutional amendment, creating a one-time exception to the state's redistricting system, which uses a bipartisan commission and court review to redraw congressional district lines at the start of each decade. The change is designated to be temporary and pegged as a response to mid-decade redistricting actions in other states, and Virginia would revert to its normal process at the end of the decade. However, the new map will be in effect for both the 26 and 28 House elections. Democrats significantly outspent Republicans in support of the measure, with prominent figures like former President Barack Obama endorsing the effort. Critics,

such as former Virginia Governor Glenn Yonkin, have said that the process of getting the amendment on the ballot was unconstitutional and called on the state Supreme Court to strike it down. Despite Tuesday's results, several challenges to the redistricting effort remain. In particular, two lawsuits alleged that the wording of the ballot question was misleading, and the plaintiffs have appealed their case to the Virginia Supreme Court. The court allowed the question to remain as written for the referendum, but has yet to issue a final decision. If it rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it is unknown how the decision would impact the redistricting outcome. Separately on Wednesday, a circuit court judge blocked the referendum results from

being certified, finding that the amendment process and ballot language were handled improperly. State Attorney General Jay Jones said his office will immediately appeal. Virginia Democrats celebrated the result. Virginia voters have spoken, and tonight they have approved a temporary measure to push back against the president who claims he is entitled to more Republican seats in Congress, Governor Abigail Spanberger said. Republicans expressed disappointment, but recommitted to push forward with legal challenges. The ballot box was never the final word here, delegate Terry Kilgore said.

Serious legal questions remain about both the wording of this referendum and the process used to put it before voters. Today, we'll share views from the right, left, and Virginian voters about the referendum. And then, Associate Editor and Virginia resident Russell Nystrom will give his take. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. First of all let's start with what the right is saying. The right is disappointed by the results, with many calling out Democratic hypocrisy on gerrymandering. Others say Republicans must bite fire with fire.

The Washington Post editorial board wrote, Virginia plunges America deeper into the gerrymandering abyss. Democratic leaders have long fancied the moment. themselves as champions of democracy and fair elections. But many of these politicians, including former President Barack Obama, made a more cynical calculation in Virginia, the board said. For them, disenfranchising Republican voters is the only way to counterbalance the desperate attempts by Republicans in other states to save their congressional majority. They're right that the GOP started this fight by trying to pick up five house seats in Texas through gerrymandering,

but they can spare us the false sanctimony about democratic norms going forward. None of this was necessary. Democrats in Maryland ended their legislative session this month without passing new maps to eliminate the sole Republican in the state's eight-member house delegation. Bill Ferguson, the Democratic president for the state Senate, withstood a nasty pressure campaign led by Governor West Moore, the board wrote. Republican legislators in Indiana similarly defeated a gerrymandering scheme despite threats of retribution from Trump, if only more legislators were willing to stand on principle. In The Daily Caller, Mary Rook said that the result reveals a hard truth for the GOP.

For decades, Republican populists have been handicapped by the so-called principled conservative wing of the GOP. The Democratic success with Virginia's redistricting teaches a lesson that the old hats can no longer ignore, Rook wrote, either use the power the voters gave you to enact their will and mandate, or sit back like the impotent fool you are and watch Democrats erase any chance for you to ever govern again. There can be no room for pretending that norms and principles play a role in a discussion where the other side has zero intent to play fair, Rook said. The lesson for the so-called principled conservatives is actually quite simple. They can either willingly fall in line with the populist movement and help save America from the modern-day Bolsheviks in the Democratic Party,

or they can cling to their norms like a life raft as the greatest country ever formed sinks into the ocean. All right, that is for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left sees the result as a rebuke of Trump, even as many worry about the long-term impacts of gerrymandering. Others say the redistricting fight is far from over. In the Atlantic, Russell Berman described Trump's enormous gerrymandering blunder. When President Trump last summer implored Republicans to launch a nationwide gerrymandering blitz to pad their own narrow House majority, the fight he started did not seem fair, Berman said. This morning, the landscape looks a lot different after Virginia voters yesterday approved a lop-sided

new House map that could hand Democrats an additional four seats that Republicans currently hold. Democrats have now succeeded in drawing districts that will likely yield them nine more seats this fall, at least matching what Republicans have been able to achieve in states that they control. Trump's move to open this new front in a centuries-old gerrymandering war between the parties looks like an enormous tactical blunder. Republicans have appeared taken aback by the ferocity with which Democrats have responded, and the speed with which they set aside their drive to ban gerrymandering. in the name of good government, Berman said.

In both California and Virginia, Democrats swamped the opposition and campaign spending, using the redistricting referenda to rile up a party base seeking any opportunity to push back against an unpopular administration. In MS Now, Paul Waldman suggested this was the easy part. The theory of the successful initiatives in California and Virginia

is that only by punishing Republicans for their mid-decade redistricting, can the GOP be persuaded to pull back from the unfair system it is constructed Waldman wrote. In other words, this is a step towards some kind of grand bargain in which the parties will agree on a future with more competitive elections. Unfortunately, that will still be a tough sell for the GOP, which might reasonably conclude that if the point where we have arrived for this year's midterm election is its worst-case scenario, gerrymandering will continue to work to its advantage.

That raises the practical problem at the end of this tip for tet. If Democrats' goal is to force Republicans to come to the table to negotiate a post-gerimandering future, Republicans will have to conclude that the current system is costing them a chance of power, Waldman said. And if Republicans simply refuse to change their ways, what then? Will Democrats in California and Virginia keep their word to revert back to independent redistricting commissions, which would be unilateral disarmament if their redistricting wars are still going on? All right. That is it for what the right and the left saying, which brings us to what writers in Virginia are saying. Some Virginian writers argue the amendment is an affront to the state's prior embrace of bipartisan

redistricting. Others say the decision is rightfully being left to voters. In the Richmond Times dispatch, Jason Mioris and Eric Cantor wrote, Virginia voters already chose fair maps. Now Washington money wants a do-over. In 2020, Virginians did something rare in politics. We changed the rules on ourselves. By a two to one margin, more than 2.8 million Virginians amended our Constitution to end partisan gerrymandering and create a bipartisan redistricting commission, which became a national model. The maps the commission drew and the courts approved included the preservation of historic minority-majority districts and served as a source of pride, B.R. Sincanter said.

Republicans and Democrats alike said the same thing. Voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around. Now, just a few years later, the political class is asking for a do-over because they don't like the outcome. The April 21st referendum would scrap the spirit of the 2020 reform and pave the way for a congressional map designed to produce 10 Democratic-leaning seats and just one Republican leaning seat. That's not fair maps. That's a mid-decade paragraph dressed up in the language of reform, Miaris and Cantor wrote. Sixty-six percent of Virginians voted for a bipartisan commission, transparency, and an end-backroom map drawing. They did not

vote for a six-year partisan detour that hands the pen back to politicians and their national funders. Before the vote, the Virginian pilot and Daily Press editorial board explored voters' decision on the fate of the amendment. Whatever one thinks about the issue, the important thing is that this will be decided by the people, not by elected officials in Richmond or Washington, and not by those who have poured tens of millions into the campaigns. Virginians will decide what's best for Virginia, the board said. Contrary to how advocates on both sides of the side, of the debate over Virginia's proposed constitutional amendment frame it, neither party can claim the moral high ground when it comes to drawing district lines. Typical decisions about the maps governing elections

are made well out of public view. Redistricting has long been a process defined by opacity, with lawmakers drawing lines to protect incumbents and, for the party in power, seek to preserve the status quo, the board route. President Donald Trump ordered Republican states to draw new lines in advance of November's election in an attempt to retain power in the U.S. House. Democratic led states, including Virginia, have moved to counter that effort and offset any potential GOP advantage. Now that decision is in the hands of the voters. All right, let's head over to Russell for his take. Hello, my name is Russell Nystrom. I am an associate editor at Tangle, as well as the social media manager. I'm writing today's take because I am a native Virginian and have lived here

my entire life. So without farther ado, let's jump in. Last summer, as President Donald Trump urged Texas to become the first domino to fall in the mid-cycle redistricting arms race, Democrats warned him that they would respond in kind, and he may come to regret it. In my home state of Virginia, where I've lived my entire life, the response was loud and immediate. And to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about the response. Despite every other ad on TV being about the race, spending on this issue eclipsing the GDP of at least one, country and being elbow deep in coverage of the event, I wasn't 100% sure of the choice I made

when I voted, and I still feel that way about 36 hours later. Middle and high schools across the country have what they describe as a zero tolerance policy with respect to fighting. That means if one student punches another student in self-defense or in responsibility, that student would be punished equally to their aggressor. That policy, right for the policy right for fully has drawn significant criticism. There are times when standing up for yourself is necessary and the right thing to do. By the same logic, I'm fine with Democrats standing up to Trump on redistricting and gerrymandering in response. I think if they didn't fight fire with fire, Republicans would see it as an opportunity to push gerrymandering even farther, knowing they

wouldn't face any resistance. But at the same time, the situation in Virginia just feels gratuitous. and both parties nationally have been in a race to the bottom on this issue, which Virginia Senate President Pro Tem Luis Lucas has been explicit about wanting to win. Virginia Republicans have plenty of fair grievances, a couple of which resonate with me. First, they are absolutely right to complain that the referendum language is needlessly slanted. There have been lots of articles about this, but many don't include the text of the referendum itself, which is worth hearing. It goes, should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census? Anecdotally, I even had a friend who was a Democrat but not very politically active.

tell me after voting that she was surprised at how biased the question was, asking how it could even be legal. The language certainly seems like an attempt to influence voters. Fairness aside, Democrats may have committed a grievous tactical error by including it. I doubt the text actually swayed many opinions, and now that language is facing legal challenges that could imperil Democrats' new map. I think the Virginia Supreme Court will uphold the new map against legal challenges, but regardless of Regardless, Democrats have needlessly dragged this out and given Republicans an extra avenue on which to attack legally and politically. Second, it's hard to swallow the reality that a vote of 51.5% was able to effectively strip

Virginians in four of our 11 congressional districts from fair representation in Congress. Our founders explicitly feared an outcome like this and tried to design our system against it. And as Virginia writer Matt Glassman points out in his blog, another negative byproduct of the gerrymandering wars is that we are increasingly treating state legislatures, the people responsible for making congressional maps, as a pass-through for national politics. We should be electing our state legislatures

based on the policies they will set for the state, not as a proxy election for what a state's congressional delegation will look like. A grievance that doesn't resonate with me as President Trump's recycled claim that the election was stolen with fraudulent mail-in ballots. This pattern is so predictable that it almost feels redundant

to even notice it, but we should notice. When an election goes Trump's way, he finds no reason to bring the results into question unless it was to say that it was rigged in a blue state during the election. Meanwhile, if it goes against Trump,

the election is always rigged in some form. The deep irony of this messaging is that both parties are objectively trying to rig the 2026 election in certain states. That's the whole point of the gerrymandering wars, and President Trump kicked it all off himself nine months ago in Texas. When Democrats warned Trump that they would respond in kind to Texas' redistricting, I thought they were bluffing. I didn't think it was plausible that Democrats can match Republicans in a redistricting tit-for-tat. The number of states where Republicans could mobilize was simply

too much to match, right? Now, I think the Democrats might have been right all along. One lesson we can learn from that is both Democrats and Republicans actually hadn't gerrymandered as much as they could have, meaning plenty of them, until now, had opted for a more ethical, honest route. Yet the main events of the last few months paint a picture of a rapidly deteriorating situation. Since Texas's measure last summer, Republicans have also redistricted in Missouri and North Carolina, likely gaining a seat in each. Ohio rejected calls for a more extreme gerrymander, and instead their redistricting commission agreed in October to a change that moved two Democratic-held seats towards Republicans, making one a lean Republican district and the other a toss-up. At the same time, they also moved a Democratic seat from toss-up to lean Democratic. Meanwhile, Republicans in Indiana rejected Trump's call to redistrict altogether, while it became clear Republicans in Kansas would not be able to override. a veto from their Democratic governor.

On the Democratic side, California and Virginia approved maps designed to pick Democrats up five and four seats, respectively. Additionally, Democrats gained a surprise seat in Utah after a state judge ruled that the map Utah approved in 2021 violated a voter-approved state law aimed at reducing partisan gerrymandering. That may all sound like a wash. Republicans purposely gerrymandered to gain nine seats, and the Democrats did the That's how a lot of headlines were written as was happening, but the headlines don't tell the full story. In Texas, Republicans took three seats that were safely Democratic and made Republicans heavily favored in two and moderately favored in another.

They then took a couple of seats Trump won by single digits, but were represented by Democrats, and moved them a shade redder. Democrats could win up to three of those seats, and they are even favored in one of them. In North Carolina, Representative Don Davis's district is once again being changed to favor Republicans, but it is still by no means out of reach for the battle-tested Democrat. Ohio sent two seats in the Republican direction, but they are still winnable for Democrats, and one seat was even told to blue. Missouri is the one state where the effect is obvious, taking a safe Democratic seat and making it a safe Republican seat.

While too many seats were affected in California to break it all down here, of the five Republican-held seats that were shifted towards Democrats, Republicans only probably have a chance in two of them, and are favored in none of them. In Virginia, all four Republican seats targeted are now lean or likely Democratic seats. Putting all of this together with a national environment in 2026 that is likely going to work against the Republicans, the results of this gerrymandering war seem to favor the Democrats.

I think they'll win each of the nine seats that they gerrymandered in their favor, Plus, they might pick up a couple of the seats that Republicans tried to gerrymander for themselves. I can only hope that after all this, both sides take stock of where we are, realize this was not worth it for anyone, and pick a different path. Florida is the next state to watch, with the state legislature holding a special session to consider redistricting next week. Maybe they will realize that nine months after Texas started this redistricting war, the total electoral balance isn't that different from where we started,

but the entire country is worse off for it. We'll be right back after this quick break. Thanks, Russell. Hey, everyone, this is Will jumping in again to cover our reader question today. This one comes from Catherine, and it was submitted through our texting service subtext, and she asks, I had a thought this morning. What's going on with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations? It seems like they went by the wayside when Trump hit the Iran War button.

Here's our response. The U.S. has been involved in facilitating peace talks between the two countries, but the start of the war in Iran at the end of February has caused the U.S. to put planned March talks on hold. Last week, Russia carried out its deadliest attack in Ukraine in 2006, killing 18 people in a series of drone attacks across the country. A few days later, Ukraine struck oil refineries and other facilities in Russia, following a U.S. waiver on sanctions against Russian oil. Also over the weekend, a Moscow-born man opened fire on civilians in Kiev, killing seven before he was killed by police on the scene. And this incident is being investigated as an act of terrorism. Separately, the European Union finalized a 90 billion euro, roughly $105.4 billion, loan package to Ukraine, on Thursday. And it is expected to impose additional sanctions against Russia as well.

The loan had been proposed last year, but it was tied up. by objections from Hungary and Slovakia, partly relating to concerns over an oil pipeline, which ceased operation for months due to damage caused by Russia. However, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky announced that Ukraine had completed repairs to the pipeline on April 21st, allowing it to resume operation and clearing the way for the final approval of the loan package. Zelensky has asked Turkey to host further peace talks, reportedly pushing for direct talks between him, Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two sides have yet to agree to another round of scheduled talks, though we are keeping an eye on this story and we plan to give it some full

newsletter attention very soon. All right, with that, I'm going to pass it over to John to take us home and we will talk to you all tomorrow. John, over to you. Thanks, Will. In this week's The Road Not Taken, most of our discussion over the topics to cover this week were focused on one issue, Ukraine. We're cognizant of the fact that we haven't provided an in-depth update on the war since last fall, favoring frequent updates on the current U.S. war in Iran, explorations of domestic issues, and occasional flex topics, less immediate stories that feature interesting policy debates. One flex topic in particular came close for us this week, moving the U.S. Department Agriculture headquarters out of D.C. However, we couldn't justify choosing that topic over Ukraine, and while we think an update on the war is overdue, we ultimately found the issues of

the wealth tax in New York City and the gerrymandering referendum in Virginia to be far more politically salient. The war in Ukraine has fallen off our list week after week, which gives us a great deal of pause. We don't want to treat Ukraine as the kind of ambient war Isaac fears the Iran conflict may turn into. To help provide some coverage, we gave an update in response to a reader question today. We will continue to revisit the latest happenings in the war as candidates for a full feature. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. The number of American pedestrians who died in the first half of 2025 declined 11%, the largest annual drop since the governor's Highway Safety Association began tracking these deaths 15 years ago.

Pedestrian deaths from January to June of 2025 totaled 3,024 incidents, still above pre-pandemic levels but below the totals for the first six months of any year since 2020. Now is the time to double down on what works. More and better infrastructure, enforcement to deter dangerous driving behaviors, engaged and informed communities, and vehicles designed to protect people on foot, said Jonathan Adkins, CEO of GHSA. An all-in strategy to address pedestrian safety will help us build

on this recent momentum and save even more lives. GHSA has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if we'd like to support our work, please go to reetangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. The latest episode of Suspension of the Rules with Isaac Ari and Camille is out today. You can check it out on Apple Music, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.

And if you want to watch the full episode, kind of feel like you're in the room with them. You can head over to our YouTube channel to check that out and previous episodes. We'll be back in your ears next Monday. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have an absolutely wonderful weekend, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wall.

Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canuth, and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.