The Daily - California Strikes Back at Texas’ Power Grab

Episode Date: August 22, 2025

Texas is about to gerrymander five new house seats, and California is ready to retaliate. Gov. Gavin Newsom says that his state will also redraw its congressional maps to create five new districts, effectively fighting fire with fire.Laurel Rosenhall, who covers California’s government and politics, discusses whether the state’s voters will actually go for this plan, whether it’ll work if they do, and what is at stake either way.Guest: Laurel Rosenhall, a New York Times reporter covering California politics and government.Background reading: Mr. Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers moved quickly to create new districts that could help their party flip five congressional seats.The Texas House approved a congressional map intended to help Republicans win five more U.S. House seats.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Mike Blake/Reuters Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

From the New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams, and this is the Daily. Texas is about to gerrymander five new house seats. In California, they're ready to retaliate. Governor Gavin Newsom says that California must also redraw its congressional maps to create five new districts, effectively fighting fire with fire. Today, I talk to my colleague Laurel Rosenhall about whether California voters will actually go for this plan, whether it'll even work if they do, and what is at stake either way. It's Friday, August 22nd. Laurel Rosenhall, so nice to have you on the Daily. Thanks, Rachel. I'm thrilled to be here. So we're talking to you today because this week, California lawmakers have been rushing through these bills that would make it possible for California to redraw its maps in favor of Democrats.

Basically directly counter what we just saw in Texas. And as we've been watching this unfold in California, it feels like that. feels like what we are seeing is actually kind of unusual. And you, Laurel, you have been covering California and its politics for over two decades. So I'm wondering if it feels unusual to you. Absolutely. This is a really wild storyline here in California. It's not unusual for California lawmakers to respond when they see red states taking actions that Democrats in California disagree with, such as on abortion or transgender rights or other policies like this. But to see this kind of just raw, hardball politics just really cutthroat power play between these states is just pretty wild

to witness and to cover. It sounds like what you're saying is that what we're seeing here is California taking that dynamic to kind of a whole new level. Yeah, this is basically, you know, one side's playing dirty. The other side's going to jump. in and play dirty too. Well, let's talk about specifics. What exactly is California doing? So California is passing a mid-decade redistricting, you know, a gerrymander. And the idea is to just do a direct counterpunch to what the Texas Republicans are doing. The difference, though, is in the way that the two states can pass their maps. In Texas, lawmakers can do it on their own. And in California, it's more complicated.

Lawmakers can't directly change the maps. They have to go to the voters and ask the voters to make the final approval. And the reason is that in the state constitution, it basically says that politicians don't have this power to draw political maps. And the person who has brought us together for this fight of all fights

is our friend, Governor Gavin Newsom. So Governor Newsom and Democratic lawmakers laid their plan out at a press conference last week in Los Angeles. We're working through a very transparent, temporary, and public process. What they want to do is call for a special election in November. We're putting the maps on the ballot and we're giving the power to the people. Where voters would decide if they want to change the Constitution to accept these new maps, that would help Democrats flip five seats in the House of Representatives. It's not complicated.

We're doing this in reaction to a President of the United States that called a sitting governor of the state of Texas and said, find me five seats. And the reason that they're going for five seats is that Texas Republicans are trying to flip five seats in Texas for the Republicans. And here he is, once again, trying to rig the system. He doesn't play by a different seat. set of rules. He doesn't believe in the rules. And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves

of the way things have been done. So the argument is that this country is in basically a state of emergency, that there needs to be a more effective check on President Trump, and that the only way to do that is for Democrats to win control of the House of Representatives next year. It's not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be. You know, here in California, there's a lot of experiences that make people feel like California specifically is under attack by this administration.

Right outside, at this exact moment, are dozens and dozens of ICE agents. You think it's coincidental? The immigration raids, climate, legislation that's been overturned by the president. There is a question of disaster aid from the fires in Los Angeles. And so the argument from Democrats in California is not about the maps. The Democrats are really trying to make the argument about what's happening in America.

That's what this is all about. It's about power. And I want to end on this. We're giving the people of this state the power to save the power. democracy, not just in California, but all across the United States of America. Because all of this is basically asking voters to reverse themselves, I want to talk about why this was even voted into law in the first place. Yeah.

I'm going to run for governor of the state of time. So here we get to go back to the era of Arnold Schwarzenegger. He took office in 2003, and he was obviously in the peak of his fame as an actor. Asthma Lovista, baby. He had had a career as a bodybuilder. He was the governor. He was the governor. I'll be back.

And he came to Sacramento with no experience holding office and little experience in politics. And he told me in an interview that when he got into office, he didn't even realize that drawing district boundaries is part of the portfolio of power that lawmakers have. He described kind of becoming aware of this idea that the district boundaries had been drawn in a way so that the districts were intensely. liberal or intensely conservative in order to assure re-election for the politicians. And he felt that it created such a barrier, such gridlock, right? Exactly. Well, you have to understand that the people of California did not send me to Sacramento to support the Democrats or to support the Republicans. They have sent me to Sacramento to clean House. Part of his governing style was really this kind of bipartisan approach. He was really

trying to do things in a centrist way. And he talked about discussing environmental policy with Republicans or discussing education reform with Democrats and that the lawmakers would say to him, you know, that's a really good idea. I like what you're talking about, but I can't vote for it. I represent a very liberal district or I represent a very conservative district. Like, he's basically saying, as a result of all this gerrymandering, I can't get anything done. Exactly. The people of California are not served well by a system that is so gerrymandered that 99% of the incumbents get reelected in the districts that date themselves true. And it also means that they, in Schu know, Schwarzenegger's view, didn't have to work very hard to keep their seats because there was very little competition, and there was very little incentive for them to sort of change the way that they governed or do anything different.

We need a system of truly competitive legislative districts, so when lawmakers go home, can be held accountable. So he becomes interested in this idea of redrawing the district boundaries in a way that is more independent and less partisan. And he ends up putting a proposal forward that would put this power in the hands of an independent commission. Legislative districts will be drawn by politically diverse citizens and who reflect. our state's population and a free of conflict of interest. How has this received this idea of this new independent commission? Because it's basically the opposite of what was happening in your description. Yeah, it was contentious.

So this question goes on the ballot in 2008 for California voters. And it was a big fight and it was a close vote. The first measure in 2008 passed by just under 51%. but then California voted to expand the power to include drawing lines for Congress. And that one passed overwhelmingly about 60% of voters were for it. And also during this time, there was an attempt to repeal the Independent Commission, and that was defeated. So basically, within a couple of years, there were three votes that upheld the voters' interest

in having this power taken away from politicians, and be given to this independent commission. Basically, the voters made it very clear that they like the idea of independence. Correct. And this was game over for gerrymandering and for politicians controlling the line drawing process. And after that, Democrats actually picked up more seats

after the independent committee redrew the maps. The state overall is very democratic. But we've seen, since the independent commission was put in place, that some regions of California are really competitive. And now we routinely have house races that are nail biters. They're super close. And it's no longer uncommon to see House districts flip back and forth between the two parties. I just want to point out that I feel like a lot of people might be surprised to hear

that this independent redistricting initiative was being pushed by a Republican governor and that it was Democrats, or at least some Democrats, who were opposed to it. because I feel like the public perception of gerrymandering, just generally, is that Republicans are the ones who are often accused of it, right? And it's the Democrats who oppose it publicly. Yeah, it does seem like that, especially now Eric Holder, who was Barack Obama's Attorney General, has become a big champion of independent redistricting. But in fact, you know, in states across the country, whichever party holds control of the legislature usually engages in gerrymandering. Whether they're Democrats or Republicans, they will usually try to work things to their advantage.

So it's not really a Democrat-Republican thing. It's, as you said, a power-no-power thing. Correct. Okay, so given all of that, that there's basically this consensus between the politicians and what the public seems to want, that they all like this independent system, It feels sort of striking that the tactic now is to say, okay, we're actually going to go back on that. Yeah, it's a tough line to walk. I mean, on the one hand, Newsom and the Democrats are saying, we believe in independent redistricting. We're proud of the system.

We wish that the entire country would do it the way California does. But they're saying that right now, things are really bad. and that basically President Trump has created an emergency for democracy and it requires a different and emergent response. They're telling voters that this will only be temporary that this gerrymander will be in place for the next three elections

and then California will go back to using its independent commission. Right. They're basically saying, we still believe in this concept, but we're pausing, because the world is on fire. Yeah. And so the Democratic leaders in California, they decide to go for it, even though there's no guarantee that it will pay off for them in the end. We'll be right back. So, Laurel, what happens? So Laurel, what happens? when Democratic leaders try to call this special election and this effort to redraw the maps?

Well, they have to start by drawing the maps, and that happened very secretively over the course of the last few weeks. And then on Monday morning, the legislators came back to Sacramento and introduced a package of bills. One of them contained the new maps that had been redrawn. others, you know, called for the special election and made other changes that would need to be made to kind of send this thing to the ballot for voters to consider. Good morning. I'd like to call the August 19th, 2025 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee to order. And then Tuesday, there's a hearing where Democratic lawmakers make their case that voters should get the chance to change the Constitution. and approve this temporary gerrymander.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. Good morning. I'm pleased to present ACA-8, but make no mistake. I'm not happy to be here. And they're really clear. ACA-8 and its companion bills are the culmination of a fight that we don't want. And it's a fight that we didn't choose. Basically, they're saying President Trump has forced us to do this.

And ACA-8 is our response to this undemocratic and un-American power grab. And of course... Madam Chair, I make a motion to amend. Amend what? Republicans on the committee are upset. I didn't get this until last night because we were not informed. They feel like Democrats are ramming it through.

There's no transparency. They're in the minority, so they were left out of the process of drawing the maps. Right. And Republicans just don't have the votes in the California legislature to kill anything with their votes. I asked to read the amendments into the journal. Second.

So they're doing everything they can to gum up the works and slow down the process. I reject that. No. On what ground, Madam Chair? My decision. Can you speak to the cost of the ACA and how much it's going to cost the taxpayers of California then? Another point of concern raised by Republicans is just the sheer cost of putting on a special election. Somewhere between $200 and $250 million.

Okay. And the fundamental idea of taking an act. action that goes against the will of the voters. So substantive arguments too. Absolutely. And, you know, there are some former members of the redistricting commission. I'm a registered Democrat, always have been. Including some horror Democrats who are just upset about the idea of changing the process. This can't be at the expense of the California Constitution nor the California voters who mandated fair, nonpartisan redistricting. Taking this power back to politicians that voters had very explicitly taken away from them.

California set the gold standard for redistricting. This is not the time to take a step back from innovative democracy. Thank you. So then it was time for a public comment. This is for people in support. Thank you. Omer Lazzardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Union. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California. Sandra Brerer on behalf of SCIU, California. Proud UAW member in strong support. And when the supporters went, they were mostly representatives

from powerful institutions that are aligned with the Democratic Party. We'll now take the opposition. Please come to the mic. And then when it was time for the opposition... I was always brought up to believe that two wrongs do not make a right. That's where we saw a lot of emotion come out.

I strongly oppose this bill and the blatant hypocrisy. All due respect, the argument is that we want to preserve democracy. You cannot preserve democracy by suspending it. Strong opposition to this bullying method you're using. A lot of them were Republicans. California Republicans are already disenfranchised. This will disenfranchise us more.

A lot of them were from areas of California that could become less represented. And you guys are actually doing us a favor, so thank you, because, people are going to come out in mass against this. And some of them are warning the lawmakers that they could really alienate the voters who put them in office.

Okay, seeing no witnesses and opposition. We'll bring it back to the dais. Members, any questions, comments? So it sounds like some of these commenters are basically trying to say, you might not want to do this. You might be selling out your voters. They've been pretty clear about what they want

and that what they want is independent redistricting. Right. Many of us prefer the old rules. We prefer the agreement we all had to play by those rules. And Democrats recognize that. But when autocrats change the rules and the norms that we are using to decide who has power, we can either fight back or we can potentially permanently lose the ability ever to fight back again in the future.

But they think that because, you know, many voters in California are really unhappy with the Trump administration and understand that if Democrats win the House, they'll be able to put a check on some of Trump's impulses, that voters might be open to setting aside the way that California has done things for a long time and do it differently, at least for a little while. But of course, California voters will have the final say on whether or not these new district paddries get used or not. The voters will get to decide. This is ultimately going back to the voters for their decision. Because here in California, unlike in Texas and other Republican-led states, we respect the will of the voters. That bill passes five to two.

And so that's what happens. The Democrats control the legislature, they pass this thing out of committee, it passes through both houses, and yesterday the governor signed it into law, which means that California is now heading toward a special election in November. And I guess then the question will become, will California voters, who are mostly Democratic, will they agree with their representatives that, basically unusual times call for unusual measures. Like, will voters perceive the Trump administration and what Texas is doing to be the emergency that lawmakers seem to? That's what we're going to find out with this election. There is reason to believe they have a shot at this.

So far, the independent polls show that California voters continue to really like their independent commission, that they don't want to completely delete this from the state constitution. But at the same time, we are seeing signals that there's support for this temporary approach. Newsom's camp has some polling numbers that look promising, and former President Obama publicly endorsed it this week, which was pretty huge. He called it a responsible approach. But there is always the chance that it won't succeed. There will be a robust opposition to this. Fight against redistricting before the midterm elections has been fierce and focal.

You know, for someone who keeps talking about democracy, he undermines it at every step. Republicans nationally are raising money to oppose it. And entering the debate today is former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger posting this picture on X saying, I'm getting ready for the gerrymandering battle while wearing a t-shirt that says terminate gerrymandering. And Governor Schwarzenegger and other supporters of the original reforms are going to be fighting to hold on to the way California does its redistricting. Governor Schwarzenegger has a 20-year history of battling gerrymandering, and he believes gerrymandering is evil no matter who does it. So I think we are heading into a not perfectly predictable situation. Okay. So it's still.

somewhat of an open question whether the Democrats will even get these new maps. But another gamble here seems to also be that even if the Democrats do get these new maps, the question is whether these maps will actually produce the results that they're hoping for, right? Like, everywhere across the country, Democrats are losing a lot of voters. And not just any voters, but voters who seem traditionally, solidly Democrats. I'm thinking about people of color, young people. These are folks that the Democrats are learning and have been learning that they can no long. rely on in the ways that they're used to? Right. I think what you're saying is that in the end, voters still get to vote. And so even if these maps are drawn in a way that's meant to help one party or help the other party, what really matters is who turns out and how they vote. And with these five seats that the Democrats are targeting in California, three of them, they feel very confident that the Democratic candidate will win. And two of them, they're hoping. they can flip them. But it's definitely not a slam dunk. The other point I would make is that

across the country, Republicans have more opportunities to redraw their maps than Democrats do. Would other Democratic states then match those Republican states, too, in that case? We'll see. Governor Newsom is definitely calling on them to do that and asking other blue states to get into this game as well. But there are fewer opportunities. One thing, is that there's no state as big as California that has as many house seats as California. So that's one limitation. Another has to do with kind of the rules of redistricting. They're different in every single state. And so in New York, for example, the governor is talking about doing some kind of redistricting, but because of the way the laws are written in New York, it wouldn't take

effect until after the 26th election. And then there are other states where Democrats have control like Maryland or Illinois, but the opportunity for pickups is very minimal. They might only be able to redraw the maps to pick up another one seat or two seats, and there's not necessarily evidence that they're ready to do that. But theoretically, this could just keep kind of going tit for tat where one Republican state gets matched by a Democratic state in sort of like a gerrymandering arms race. Yep. I also wonder if this focus on redrawing maps takes away from the party's basically just doing the work of convincing people that they're the right ones

to lead the country, that they are the ones with the better policies. Like, what about just, I don't know, old-fashioned persuasion to win elections? Yeah, it's a really good question, and I think it's something that the Democratic Party is going to have to confront in this battle. You're going to hear people saying,

is this really speaking to what voters care about, drawing district lines? How is that addressing the, needs? How is that addressing the high cost of gasoline or groceries? How is that addressing the performance of their schools that their children attend? And so it's absolutely going to be at issue here. Can they still persuade or are they just changing the rules of the game so that they don't have to? But one version of persuasion is about showing fight. And particularly in the Trump era where there is a very cutthroat political dynamic and in the last election where Democrats were seen as being weak and not being able to counter the strength of President Trump, this issue is giving Democrats an opportunity to bring a knife to a knife fight.

They're showing that they are going to, you know, meet the Republicans where they're at. They're not going to let Republicans change the game without putting up some fight. And they're really going against their reputation as being the defenders of the status quo who are just so obsessed with process and fairness that they forget about winning and getting power. And I think what we're going to see in this election is how much the Democratic Party has changed. It wasn't so long ago that Michelle Obama said when they go, low, we go high. And now we're seeing that elected Democrats in California

are not playing that game anymore. They're saying when they go low, we'll get down there with them and we'll try to beat them at their own game. Laurel, thank you so much. Thanks, Rachel. It was great to be here. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. A federal judge on Thursday ruled that New Jersey's U.S. attorney, Alina Haba,

had been serving without legal authority for more than a month, thrusting the state's already paralyzed federal court system further into disarray. The judge, Matthew W. Bran, disqualified Ms. Haba from participating in any ongoing cases, although he paused the outcome of that decision until the government had had a chance to make its case. Still, the ruling was a remarkable rebuke to a Justice Department that, under President Trump, has gone great lengths to keep its preferred U.S. attorneys in their jobs.

And Manhattan prosecutors announced sweeping corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams' former chief advisor, Ingrid Lewis Martin, accusing her of trading her influence for a wide range of benefits, including money, crab cakes, and an appearance on the television show, Godfather of Harlem. The charges come just one day after another close advisor to Mayor Adams,

Winnie Greco, was suspended from his re-election campaign after trying to slip a reporter at least $100 in cash inside a bag of potato chips. Today's episode was produced by Olivia Nat, Mary Wilson, Eric Kruppke, and Nina Feldman. It was edited by Lizzo Baylon and Paige Cowett, and was engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for the Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you on Monday.