The NPR Politics Podcast - Could Democrats Be Leveling The Redistricting Playing Field?

Episode Date: November 12, 2025

The redistricting arms race continues, with several developments that may blunt President Trump's effort to advantage the Republican Party in the 2026 midterm elections. We also discuss a case before the Supreme Court that could alter how mail-in ballots are counted and an effort to reduce elections occurring in odd-numbered years.This episode: national political correspondent Sarah McCammon, political correspondent Ashley Lopez, and voting correspondent Miles Parks.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Support for NPR and the following message comes from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. RWJF is a national philanthropy, working toward a future where health is no longer a privilege but a right. Learn more at RWJF.org. Hi, this is Molly and my cello, here at our community symphony orchestra in Middletown, New York. We're prepping for our All-Strauss 200th birthday bash. This podcast was recorded at 106 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 12th, 2025. Things may have changed by the time you hear this,

but I'll probably still be waltzing away to Strauss. Lovely. Yeah, I love that. I love a stringed instrument. You know, I was surprised. I feel like there was 10 years where I wasn't in a string instrument, a little trauma from playing the viola in elementary school. But now I feel like that sounds really nice. It's coming back online.

Back, yeah. I'm glad you've recovered, Miles. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Sarah McCammon. I cover politics. I'm Ashley Lopez. I also cover politics. And I'm Miles Parks.

I cover voting. Today on the show, we're talking about some news related to how people vote, including some new redistricting efforts and a Supreme Court case that could affect elections in more than half the country. So let's start with redistricting. Big news in the last several days. Miles, there have been a few updates in a few states recently in what? what's sort of become a redistricting arms race. Catch us up. Yeah, it is a lot to track.

And I feel like let's just go from the last couple weeks. We'll go biggest to smallest in terms of impact. I think the biggest development at this point recently was in Virginia where a couple of weeks, this is not a state that was really on people's radars when it came to the redistricting battles. But Democrats have started a pretty long bureaucratic process to get that state in play. It involves multiple votes in the General Assembly. And it also will involve, should it move forward, a question that gets to voters at some point next year. But the General Assembly did take the first step to move redistricting there forward. If all of the steps get passed and voters do approve it next year, then that could mean two to three seats for Democrats in that state.

Other states were watching Ohio. Republicans and Democrats agreed on a map that is slightly more advantageous to Republicans and that it gives them the opportunity to potentially grab one or two seats, but there is a real possibility, especially if there is a real blue wave next year, that Democrats are able to hold on to all five of the congressional seats in Ohio that they currently hold. And then Utah, a judge there this week struck down the map that the Utah legislature had proposed that did look like a 4-0 Republican control of all of their congressional seats and instead approved a map that would create a Democratic district in Utah right around Salt Lake City. So all of that, a lot to unpack, but what seems like a much better picture for Democrats than previously thought. Okay. It is a lot to unpack. Ashley, can you just put this in the bigger picture for us? Miles was just talking about all these different states that are looking at redistricting in Virginia, maybe a couple more seats for Dems. But nationwide, what does this mean in terms of the elections next year and who might control the House?

Yeah, I mean, Miles touched on this a little bit, but it looks like the picture moving into the midterms in terms of a national landscape for Democrats isn't looking as bad as it once did. I mean, remember, this all started because Trump was nervous about the midterms next year. And he wanted Republicans to have a little bit of an advantage seat-wise. Control of Congress has been for a while now, you know, it's like relied on just a few seats. So he wanted to create a significant edge for the party moving into next year because he's afraid of a wave election that could favor Democrats. And so Texas was the first big state that he called upon to create five new seats. And that was an easy lift in Texas pretty much. But, you know, it was not looking good for Democrats because Republicans structurally, it is easier for them to just redistrict mid-decade like this without a court order. For Democrats, like in California, they have those independent redistricting commissions. So Democrats are really wringing their hands about the outcome of all this. And right now it's looking like it's maybe not as bad as it potentially could have been. But as Miles just said, like legislatures are also starting.

to meet in January, things could look very different when lawmakers sit down. Yeah, I mean, I feel like we can't reiterate that enough. It's really tempting to take each individual state and say, Virginia, okay, I'm panamiming, writing three little seats for Democrats, okay, Utah one for Democrats. It is almost, almost pointless to be doing that right now in November of 2025 because there is still so much uncertainty. Even I feel like, Ashley, people are talking about Missouri as a sure thing that this is like another Republican district, whereas it's very possible that voters are going to have their say there. Well, and the calculus is very different state by state for the parties.

One of the reasons that it looked like this would advantage Republicans, as you mentioned, the structural issues, Ashley, but also Republicans control more state legislatures so they kind of can call the shots here. But I talked to a Republican strategist with Ayers who told me that after last week's strong turnout for Democrats and those off-year elections, the picture looks a little more murky for Republicans. The way you would create more Republican seats is by taking Republican votes out of Republican-leaning districts. The National Republican Congressional Committee's top priority is protecting Republican incumbents. And so they're not going to be real happy if these redistricting efforts weaken any of their Republican incumbents. So you may see some Republican states rethinking that redistricting effort. Especially coming out of this last election that just happened. And imagine you're a Republican in a state legislature and you're being asked to redraw these congressional lines.

And what you're being told to do is to basically shave off some Republican voters from a currently very safe Republican seat to move those voters into what could be a less safe seat for a Republican. You're looking at what happened last weekend. Yes, I do think like, you know, special elections do not tell you what's going to happen in a midterm election when more people are voting. But you could be pretty scared about that. That might be a tougher sell than it was a month ago. for lawmakers, especially since we're looking at key demographics that help Republicans win in 2024, like Latino voters, there is significant evidence from polling and this last election that those are not voters that they can rely on. So when they're looking at redistricting, it might be a tougher sell for some Republicans. Also, each of these states, the Republican politicians are human beings themselves. We saw this in Kansas, which looked like a sure thing as a state that was going to redistrict. There's a super majority there, Republican control. And yet, plans seem to be. delayed. They were not able to call a special session that Republican leadership there wanted, and as a result, a number of Republican lawmakers there have lost their leadership positions on committees. The Speaker of the House, Dan Hawkins, was on a conservative radio show talking about

that decision recently. Any leader that is not working with the other leaders to make things happen is really doesn't deserve to be a chair anymore. And quite frankly, that's the reason why I made a move. Which I think just goes back to the complexity of these. calculations, particularly for Republicans right now. Ashley, you spent some time in California covering that state's redistricting efforts. I think one of the things that's interesting about redistricting is it's not necessarily a straightforward, obvious, easy sell to voters. Like, Democrats there had to kind of explain what they were doing and why. How do voters tend to respond to these kinds of measures? In general, voters do not like the system that is set up in

this country where politicians basically choose their voters when they draw up political lines. It is largely unpopular. It has been that way for a while. It's why 10, 20 years ago, you were seeing all of these ballot measures crop up that were basically taking that decision away from politicians. But for right now, if you're a Republican legislator looking to redistrict, this might be, you know, a more complicated question. I will say resistance to this effort by Democrats is a little bit more popular. What happened in California, I mean, that ballot measure, Prop 50 passed with so far, it looks like 65 percent of the vote. And then in Missouri, you know, advocates collecting signatures there for the voter referendum that could possibly overturn the gerrymander in Missouri by Republicans.

They say they collected more than 200,000 signatures in two months. And it was like hundreds of volunteers who did that. So there is momentum on the Democratic side. It seems to be a less difficult, like, task for Democrats to get their voters interested in this. Yeah. And I feel like Republicans have the advantage when it comes to having control of more state houses in terms of drawing districts. But Democrats have the advantage when it comes to these ballot referendums. Because when you talk about whether it's Missouri or Virginia, potentially next year, those are going to be off-year, weird-time elections at times that voters aren't used to voting.

And we've talked on this podcast a lot since the election results in Virginia and New Jersey and New York that Democrats right now are favored in those sort of off-year special elections because they are the party that is right now doing better with highly educated voters, kind of higher propensity voters that tend to vote in those sorts of elections. We've also talked a lot about the frustration Democrats have felt in recent months, the sense that they have no power in Washington and little power, a lot of other places. But it seems like at least in California and maybe some other places, Democrats have been able to effectively sell to voters the idea that this is something that we can do. Democrats feel like they are less empowered now because they are. They don't have control of Congress. And so Democratic voters see the upcoming midterms as a way to finally bring some sort of balance to. the mix of power in Washington. The midterm after a new president comes in, I mean, this is not a new president in this case, but this usually is a favorable atmosphere for the opposition party.

And it is very rare to have the party in power say, redistrict for me so that we can hold on to power. And so the opportunity that, you know, Democratic voters viewed they had in this midterm is like quickly being almost drawn away. So there is just like a little bit more impetus for them to fight. And they have the ability to say he did it first, right? I mean, that is a big, big thing to be able to say. It's not like we started this. President Trump on tape, you know, has said it numerous times and been very explicit about what he wanted here.

And I think that makes it easier for Democrats to make the sell. All right. We have to take a quick break. We'll have more in just a moment. Support for NPR and the following message comes from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. RWJF is a national philanthropy working toward a future where health is no longer a Privilege, but a right. Learn more at our wjf.org. And we're back. So we've been talking to some possible changes to the way congressional

district lines are drawn. We also want to talk about some possible changes to how people vote. The U.S. Supreme Court has said it will hear a case for Mississippi that could alter the way that states count their mail-in ballots. Ashley, just explain if you would, the basics of that case. Sure. So this started as a legal challenge from the Republican National Committee ahead. of the 2024 presidential election. Basically, Mississippi and about 20 other states and territories allow election officials to count ballots that get to their postal service before election day, but they arrive to where they actually count votes after election day, right? And the reason these laws exist is pretty obvious, like especially in rural areas, like mail just doesn't get there

very fast. And so this is a little wiggle room for voters. So anyways, the Trump campaign and the R&C were basically fighting these laws because they claim they violate federal law that says that this is when elections happen. It ends on election day. And you shouldn't be allowed to count those ballots afterwards. And at first when these lawsuits came down, I will say, like courts kind of threw them out because this is not a new thing in elections to count ballots that arrive after election day. But in this case, the Mississippi state leaders asked the court to intervene on this. Yeah, and I feel like it's setting up a situation, the Supreme Court announcing that they're going to take on this case where the Supreme Court has a very busy docket next year when it comes to elections. And they could have a real impact on democracy. I mean, between this policy, which more than half of the states, you know, the 20 or so states that Ashley mentioned, in addition to that, there's a number of states that allow military and overseas voters, this sort of grace period for their ballot to be postmarked but then arrive after election day. It could impact all of those states. also going to take on a major case regarding the Voting Rights Act that could, depending on how the court decides, involve another huge round of redistricting that could potentially eliminate more than a dozen districts that are currently held by black Democrats. And so that potentially could have a huge impact on the makeup of the U.S. House of Representatives. And then lastly, they're also taking up a case that is going to get into the question of who is actually allowed

to sue around election laws, which could mean even more election litigation than we normally see in an election year. When it comes to the mail and ballots, Miles, you mentioned military voters, Ashley, you mentioned rural voters. Sort of a two-part question. I mean, who's most affected by this kind of policy, if it were changed? And who benefits? I will say there are certain states that will be very greatly affected by this, especially the states that run universal mail and ballot programs. So like Washington, Oregon, California. I mean, voters are just used to having this wiggle room and to tell them from one year to the next that, hey, you have to get this not just so that it is in the mail before Election Day. But at your local election administrator's office or like in a drop box before Election Day is a big change. I mean, I remember Washington State, for example, in one of their last big elections, they had hundreds of thousands of ballots that came in after Election Day. So that would be a big change to voters there.

Yeah. I feel like it's very unclear exactly how this is going to shake up partially because we can't really speculate on exactly what the Supreme Court is going to rule. But this is a policy that is longstanding for. decades. You think about people mailing in their ballot from some far off military post halfway across the world. Politicians have really prioritized making it as easy as possible for those people to vote. And if you were to institute a really hard deadline like this, you almost certainly are going to see thousands, tens of thousands potentially votes be rejected, which, I mean, there is going to be backlash if that is going to occur, at least in the first few election cycles after a rule like that has changed. That said, we don't know how it's. it's going to shake out, but it could impact a lot of people.

I mean, for sure, one win is this would be a win for President Trump. He does not like mail-in ballots. He has been maligning them and discrediting them for many years now. And this all started, you know, ahead of the 2024 election because the Trump campaign wanted to delegitimize a lot of mail ballots in case they didn't win in that election. Miles, what do we know about mail-in ballots? I mean, how much data is there about fraud or alleged fraud? There's just never been evidence of any of the things President Trump has accused.

of mail ballots, whether that's impacting the presidential race in 2020, whether that's, you know, being the reason that he loses California every time he runs in a federal race. No evidence of that has ever come to light. And I will also note that when it comes to a policy like this, grace periods for mail ballots arriving to election officials after election day, there's also never been evidence to show that that is connected to any sort of fraudulent activity. I mean, there is marginally, when you think about where does fraud occur in the election, system, it marginally occurs more often in mail ballots than in in person voting, but it is still shown to be such a small fraction of a fraction of a percentage point, that it doesn't occur in

anything that is changing the outcome of Senate races or presidential races or any of the things that he is accused. And I will say that Democrats see this attack on these grace periods, exactly what Ashley is saying, is connected to this broader effort to go back to the time when people were voting on election day. I was, I reached out to the. Secretary of State of Oregon, Tobias Reid, who said explicitly that, quote, this is a deliberate attempt to rig the election and silence hardworking busy people. And so, I mean, those are very strong words, but they do not see this as just some argument over election policy. They see it as an effort to make voting harder. Okay, I find myself wondering the same thing I'm wondering about

this redistricting, which is, could this backfire for Republicans? I mean, if you look at, you know, Pew Data, military veterans backed Trump last year by a very significant margin. I don't know how that breaks down along overseas versus not overseas, but there's a long history of sort of military support for Republicans. Same thing with rural voters by and large. Could this backfire? I mean, if you look at a state like Alaska, that's a great question. That is a kind of purply leaning Republican state where a lot of voters vote by mail because everyone lives far away from everything. So this is a big open question in states that have a lot of mail and ballots that are used by all their voters, not just Democratic voters, because that is true of most mail.

ballot program. Yeah, and I will also note that when you change rules quickly and on short notice, the voters that are most impacted are low propensity voters, which we keep going back to this because it's really important that these are voters that have been going towards Republicans in recent years, especially for President Trump. And so changing policies at the last second, the highly educated, the people who vote every single cycle, they're probably not going to be impacted by it because they're reading the Secretary of State's website or they're listening to this podcast every single day. It's the people who, you know, are casually checking in every couple cycles that are the ones who are generally speaking more often to turn their ballot in closer to election day, which are the ballots that would be impacted by a policy change like this. Okay. On another voting related note, Ashley, you've been covering an effort to consolidate elections in even numbered years. So no more of these off-off year elections. What have you been following there?

Right. So, I mean, I started looking into this because there was an uptick in states looking at this. So this. So this year, 29 states introduced legislation aimed at consolidating their election dates in some way. And that is a mix of Democratic and purply and Republican states. And so far, 12 states have enacted these laws. Also, you know, there was this high profile election in New York City that everyone remembers. And little known part of that election was one of the proposals before voters was to move this very high profile election that happens off cycle after every. presidential election to move that mayoral election to when there are federal elections during even-numbered years. And that did not pass. And interestingly, I think Zora Mamdani, the Democratic

incoming mayor, he voted against it, which is interesting. I mean, this is another area where we see a little bit of realignment in politics. Like progressives have usually been pushing to move off-cycle elections to even-numbered years because more voters tend to vote then. You have a more diverse mix of voters during even numbered years because low propensity voters are more likely to vote in federal elections than they are in these off-year sort of local elections. And I mean, one of the other big things that's changing in this is that Republican-backed groups like Alec, the American Legislative Exchange Council, has taken this on as an issue that's important to them. They want to move local elections to even numbered years. So, yeah, it's a sort of like an interesting

political change that's happening on a voting issue. And why? Is that because the voting patterns are shifting? What's behind this? You know, it's a good question. Alex says, and this is very on brand for Alec, that these off cycle elections are expensive and not a lot of voters partake. The other part of this that I, you know, I see as like a political reporter is Republicans now have a larger share of these low propensity voters. And so they're on issues like school boards, stuff that, you know, conservative voters really care about. Their voters aren't turning up at. And Democrats are are doing better in. So they want to move those, those like little races, like school boards to even numbered years because these are issues that are important to them. And, you know,

yeah, if you're not doing well on these odd numbered year special elections, you know, why have them? I have to say, like, of all the results on Tuesday, this was the only one that was like, I was shocked by New York City voters voting not to move this to. I feel like people in New York City are always like, I'm so busy. I'm doing 800 things. I have plans on a Monday. Like, I didn't think they would want to vote more than they have to. And yet, when these voters went to decide on on Tuesday, what you're really deciding is, do I want to dilute my vote? Because if you are voting already on the ballot measure, you are a voter who's being counted, who his voice is being heard. And by increasing turnout, your voice is going to matter just marginally less so.

And so I don't know if that was part of the calculation for people or also voters are just generally pretty freaked out about changing their election systems. But it is going to be a really interesting thing to watch in the coming years, whether Democrats change their tune on when they won elections. For sure. Okay, let's leave it there for today. I'm Sarah McCam, and I cover politics. I'm Ashley Lopez. I also cover politics. And I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. working toward a future where health is no longer a privilege but a right. Learn more at our WJF.org.