GOP

Republicans are licking their wounds after Tuesday’s ballot box defeats. But there is a lesson to be learned here. The various elections in New York City, New Jersey and Virginia, viewed collectively, reminded us yet again of a perennial political truth: Americans still care first and foremost about their wallets.

Culture war-type issues often generate the most salacious headlines — and many of the Trump administration’s fights on these fronts, such as immigration enforcement and higher education reform, are just and necessary. Still, the economy remains the top political issue. Unless Republicans get more serious about advancing an actionable economic agenda to provide real relief to middle- and working-class Americans, the party risks losing even more ground in next year’s midterm elections.

When voters went to the polls in New York City, New Jersey and Virginia, they were often asking the simplest, most urgent questions: Can I pay the rent? Can I fill up my truck at the pump? Can I fill the fridge? Will my job still exist next year? Do I have reliable healthcare for my children? Across too many districts and communities, those answers remain uneasy. Inflation, while well down from its Biden-era peak, is still stubbornly higher than the Fed’s 2% target. Purchasing power is still eroded, and cost-of-living anxieties persist for far too many.

For Republicans, this is both a warning and an opportunity. Despite a concerted effort in recent years to rebrand as the party of the common man, including but hardly limited to Teamsters President Sean O’Brien getting a coveted speaking slot at last year’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, too many voters still associate the GOP with tax cuts for the donor class and a general indifference toward the tens of millions of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck. That’s the blunt truth. The perception of corruption in some of the highest corridors of power in Washington, especially when it comes to the influence wielded by the über-wealthy emirate of Qatar, doesn’t exactly assuage voters’ concerns.

If the GOP wants to regain the public’s trust, it must present a compelling vision of what a sound conservative economic stewardship entails in the 21st century.

That redefinition begins with a renewed focus on work, dignity and resilience. The Republican Party must build an economic narrative that centers on taming inflation, boosting wages, rebuilding America’s industrial base and greater healthcare security for the paycheck-to-paycheck class. Conservatives should pursue a pragmatic economic nationalism — one that ties together trade policy, manufacturing, energy production, workforce development and family formation. All proposed economic policies must be explained in concrete, local terms. The relevant questions each and every time should be: How does this policy tangibly benefit the average American, and how can the policy be messaged so that the benefit is clearly understood?

The voters Republicans need to reach are not tuning in to wonky policy seminars. They want results: lower energy bills, affordable groceries, job security and an economy that rewards hard work. The GOP must speak directly to these priorities with honesty and humility.

If economic anxiety persists through next fall’s midterms, voters will punish whichever party appears more indifferent to their struggles. The Trump administration and Republicans across the country need to get to work fast. That means more Trump-signed executive orders, within the confines of the law, that can provide real economic relief and security to the working men and women of America. And it certainly means a concerted congressional attempt to bolster the economic prospects of the middle and working classes, perhaps through the Senate’s annual budget reconciliation process.

Inflation must finally be tamed — including the Fed raising interest rates, contra Trump’s general easy-money instincts, if need truly be. Private health savings account access must be expanded and the ease of acquiring private healthcare must finally be divorced from the particular circumstances of one’s employment. More jobs and supply chains must be reshored. Concerns about child care affordability and parental leave availability must be addressed. And even more of our bountiful domestic energy must be extracted. These are just some of the various policies that voters might reward at the ballot box next fall.

Our searing cultural battles will continue — and they matter, greatly in fact. But when a family can’t afford its groceries or gas, such debates tend to fade into the background. Republicans must rebuild trust with voters on the most fundamental issue in American politics: the promise of economic opportunity and security.

It’s always dangerous to over-extrapolate and glean clear national lessons from a few local elections. But all three of the biggest recent races — for New York City mayor and for New Jersey and Virginia governors — had final winning margins for Democrats greater than most polling suggested. That seems like a clear enough rebuke. Accordingly, the Trump administration and Republicans across the country must deliver real economic results on the real economic issues facing the American people. If they don’t present a compelling economic vision and execute that vision capably and efficiently, there likely will be even greater electoral damage next fall.

That could all but doom the remainder of the Trump presidency. And what a disappointment that would be.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

California Republicans in Congress are vastly outnumbered by their Democratic counterparts in the state — and it may get worse.

Five of the nine GOP seats are at risk after California voters passed Proposition 50 in Tuesday’s special election. The measure, put on the ballot by the Democratic-led state Legislature, reshaped California congressional districts in a way that was specifically designed to unseat Republican incumbents.

The new maps target areas held by Reps. Kevin Kiley and Doug LaMalfa in Northern California, Rep. David Valadao in the Central Valley, and Reps. Ken Calvert, Young Kim and Darrell Issa in Southern California. The radical reconfiguration not only put Republicans in danger, but probably protects vulnerable Democratic officeholders by adding more voters from their own party into their reconfigured districts.

Already, California’s Republican members hold just nine seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, while Democrats have 43.

Proposition 50’s passage also sets off an intraparty fight for a newly created Republican seat in Riverside and Orange counties, which will pit two GOP incumbents against one another — Calvert of Corona and Kim of Anaheim Hills — knocking one of them out of office. Calvert and Kim on Wednesday announced they planned to run for that seat.

“With the passage of Prop. 50, Californians were sold a bill of goods, allowing [Gov.] Gavin Newsom and his radical allies in Sacramento an unprecedented power grab to redraw the Congressional map and silence those who disagree with his extreme policies,” Calvert said in a statement.

Newsom and other Democratic leaders argue that redistricting, which normally happens once a decade by an independent commission, was necessary after GOP leaders in Texas redrew their own congressional districts — at the request of President Trump — in a bid to add more seats for their party and retain Republican control of the House.

The passage of Proposition 50 will boost Democratic efforts to win control of the House after the 2026 election, a victory that likely would stifle parts of Trump’s agenda and open the president and his administration to a litany of congressional investigations.

Proposition 50 is expected to exacerbate the political isolation that millions of Republicans in California already feel, especially in the state’s vast northern and inland territories, and conservative suburban enclaves.

Trump won 38% of the presidential vote in California last year. About a quarter of the state’s registered voters are Republicans. Yet, Democrats have held every statewide office since 2011, and have an iron grip on the California congressional delegation.

Some California Republicans may be left asking: “Who in Congress is representing our views and who do we turn to?” said Mark Baldassare, survey director of the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

Cook Political Report, which tracks elections, changed 11 California congressional district race ratings Tuesday, with all but one district moving in Democrats’ favor.

Political consultant Rob Stutzman remains skeptical that Democrats will win all five congressional seats targeted by Newsom in the 2026 midterm elections. Some of the GOP representatives have deep roots in the community and have survived past challenges by Democrats, Stutzman said.

Newsom and others “may have overpromised what Prop. 50 could do,” Stutzman said.

Here are the top six Republicans whose districts were changed by Proposition 50 and who may find their political future at risk.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale)

In Northern California, LaMalfa appears likely to run in one of two redesigned districts: One that stretches toward Mendocino National Forest and south toward Santa Rosa, or another that runs along the Oregon border and down the coast to the San Francisco Bay Area.

His current district, which spreads across the deeply conservative northeast corner of California to the Sacramento suburbs, was carved up by Proposition 50 and replaced with three districts that favor Democrats.

“They’re not going to kidnap my district here without a battle,” LaMalfa, 65, said Tuesday.

Democrats running for Congressional District 1’s seat — the seat that includes Mendocino National Forest — include Audrey Denney, an education director who unsuccessfully challenged LaMalfa in 2018 and 2020.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin)

Kiley’s new district takes in neighborhoods in and around Sacramento, pulling in Democratic voters and losing former Republican communities along the Nevada border.

He hasn’t said which district he’ll seek.

“My current district is split six different ways,” Kiley, 40, said Wednesday. “In that sense, I have a lot of options.”

On Tuesday night, he promised to “work across party lines to find a national solution to the age-old plague of gerrymandering, and in particular, to the more recent affliction of mid-decade gerrymandering.”

Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford)

Valadao’s predominantly Latino district in the Central Valley extends north post-Proposition 50, gaining more registered Democrats.

Still, more Democratic voters doesn’t necessarily translate to a Democratic victory, given the conservative attitudes in the region. A dairy farmer, Valadao, 48, has survived past challenges, in part due to poor turnout among Democrats and his popularity among moderate voters in the Central Valley.

Among those who have announced their intention to challenge Valadao is Visalia school board trustee Randy Villegas, a Democrat.

Valadao was among the few Republicans who voted to impeach President Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters, increasing his appeal to Democratic voters. But he could also be vulnerable because of his support for Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which cut medical benefits for roughly two-thirds of his constituents. The representative argued his district will get concessions for rural hospitals, water infrastructure and agricultural investments in the legislation.

A Valadao spokesperson didn’t immediately respond for a request for comment Tuesday night.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) and Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills)

Nearly all of Calvert’s district was moved north, and now takes in the Los Angeles County communities of Pomona, Ontario and Fontana.

However, Calvert, 72, announced he would run for the newly formed 40th Congressional District, which includes western Riverside County and eastern Orange County, including his hometown of Corona, as well as Murrieta and Mission Viejo. It’s a strongly Republican district now shared by Republican colleague Kim of Anaheim Hills.

“Californians in the newly drawn 40th District deserve a proven conservative they can trust and a fighter who has delivered results for Riverside and Orange County for decades,” Calvert said in a statement Wednesday. “No one else comes close to my record of service to the new 40th. I’ve lived here my entire life and already represent the majority of this district in Congress.”

Calvert praised Trump’s economic record and efforts to “secure our borders,” a direct appeal to the president’s MAGA base living in the region.

Michael Moodian, public policy researcher at Chapman University, expects Calvert will face a “tough fight” with Kim in the 2026 election.

Calvert is the longest-serving Republican member of California’s congressional delegation and is well known among voters in the area, while Kim is a strong fundraiser and has a moderate tone given that her current district is politically divided, Moodian said.

Kim, 63, one of the first Korean American women elected to Congress, last year won a third term.

Kim on Wednesday boasted that she was one of the most prominent Republican fundraisers in Congress and had a proven record of winning tough races.

“I’m running because California needs proven fighters who will stand with President Trump to advance a bold America First agenda that restores law and order in our communities, strengthens our national security, and protects the American Dream for future generations,” Kim said in a statement.

Calvert has survived previous redistricting rounds, including in 2021, when the overwhelmingly liberal Palm Springs — the first city in the nation to elect an all-LGBTQ+ city council — was added to his district and the Republican-heavy Temecula was taken out.

In 2024, Calvert fended off former federal prosecutor Will Rollins, besting the young Democrat 51.7% to 48.3%.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall)

Post-Proposition 50, Issa’s Republican stronghold in Southern California becomes more narrowly divided among Democrats and Republicans and gets a larger share of Latino voters. Like Calvert and Kim, Issa may decide to run in the new Republican-majority seat in Riverside and Orange counties.

“California is my home,” Issa said Tuesday night. “And it’s worth fighting for,”

He called Proposition 50 “the worst gerrymander in history” and vowed to continue to represent “the people of California — regardless of their party or where they live.”

Issa, 72, lost a legal challenge last week over the new maps, which he sought to block.

According to the complaint filed in federal court, Issa claimed he would be harmed because he would lose “seniority advantages in committee proceedings” and have “reduced influence over legislative priorities and committee work affecting my constituents,” NBC7 in San Diego reported.

Democratic San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert and perennial candidate Ammar Campa-Najjar are among those challenging Issa in his new seat.

WASHINGTON — The hurried push to revise California’s congressional districts has drawn national attention, large sums of money, and renewed hope among Democrats that the effort may help counter a wave of Republican redistricting initiatives instigated by President Trump.

But if Democrats succeed in California, the question remains: Will it be enough to shift the balance of power in Congress?

To regain control of the House, Democrats need to flip three Republican seats in the midterm elections next year. That slim margin prompted the White House to push Republicans this summer to redraw maps in GOP states in an effort to keep Democrats in the minority.

Texas was the first to signal it would follow Trump’s edict and set off a rare mid-decade redistricting arms race that quickly roped in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom devised Proposition 50 to tap into his state’s massive inventory of congressional seats.

Californians appear poised to approve the measure Tuesday. If they do, Democrats potentially could gain five seats in the House — an outcome that mainly would offset the Republican effort in Texas that already passed.

While Democrats and Republicans in other states also have moved to redraw their maps, it is too soon to say which party will see a net gain, or predict voter sentiment a year from now, when a lopsided election in either direction could render the remapping irrelevant.

GOP leaders in North Carolina and Missouri approved new maps that likely will yield one new GOP seat in each, Ohio Republicans could pick up two more seats in a newly redrawn map approved Friday, and GOP leaders in Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas and Florida are considering or taking steps to redraw their maps. In all, those moves could lead to at least 10 new Republican seats, according to experts tracking the redistricting efforts.

To counter that, Democrats in Virginia passed a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would give lawmakers the power and option to redraw a new map ahead of next year’s election. Illinois leaders are weighing their redistricting options and New York has filed a lawsuit that seeks to redraw a GOP-held district. But concerns over legal challenges already tanked the party’s efforts in Maryland and the potential dilution of the Black vote has slowed moves in Illinois.

So far, the partisan maneuvers appear to favor Republicans.

“Democrats cannot gerrymander their way out of their gerrymandering problem. The math simply doesn’t add up,” said David Daly, a senior fellow at the nonprofit FairVote. “They don’t have enough opportunities or enough targets.”

Complex factors for Democrats

Democrats have more than just political calculus to weigh. In many states they are hampered by a mix of constitutional restrictions, legal deadlines and the reality that many of their state maps no longer can be easily redrawn for partisan gain. In California, Prop. 50 marks a departure from the state’s commitment to independent redistricting.

The hesitancy from Democrats in states such as Maryland and Illinois also underscores the tensions brewing within the party as it tries to maximize its partisan advantage and establish a House majority that could thwart Trump in his last two years in office.

“Despite deeply shared frustrations about the state of our country, mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined,” Bill Ferguson, the Maryland Senate president, wrote in a letter to state lawmakers last week.

In Illinois, Black Democrats are raising concerns over the plans and pledging to oppose maps that would reduce the share of Black voters in congressional districts where they have historically prevailed.

“I can’t just think about this as a short-term fight. I have to think about the long-term consequences of doing such a thing,” said state Sen. Willie Preston, chair of the Illinois Senate Black Caucus.

Adding to those concerns is the possibility that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority could weaken a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act and limit lawmakers’ ability to consider race when redrawing maps. The outcome — and its effect on the 2026 midterms — will depend heavily on the timing and scope of the court’s decision.

The court has been asked to rule on the case by January, but a decision may come later. Timing is key as many states have filing deadlines for 2026 congressional races or hold their primary election during the spring and summer.

If the court strikes down the provision, known as Section 2, advocacy groups estimate Republicans could pick up at least a dozen House seats across southern states.

“I think all of these things are going to contribute to what legislatures decide to do,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice. The looming court ruling, he added, is “an extra layer of uncertainty in an already uncertain moment.”

Republican-led states press ahead

Support for Prop. 50 has brought in more than $114 million, the backing of some of the party’s biggest luminaries, including former President Obama, and momentum for national Democrats who want to regain control of Congress after the midterms.

In an email to supporters Monday, Newsom said fundraising goals had been met and asked proponents of the effort to get involved in other states.

“I will be asking for you to help others — states like Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and more are all trying to stop Republican mid-decade redistricting efforts. More on that soon,” Newsom wrote.

Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called a special session set to begin Monday, to “protect Hoosiers from efforts in other states that seek to diminish their voice in Washington and ensure their representation in Congress is fair.”

In Kansas, the GOP president of the state Senate said last week that there were enough signatures from Republicans in the chamber to call a special session to redraw the state’s maps. Republicans in the state House would need to match the effort to move forward.

In Louisiana, Republicans in control of the Legislature voted last week to delay the state’s 2026 primary elections. The move is meant to give lawmakers more time to redraw maps in the case that the Supreme Court rules in the federal voting case.

If the justices strike down the practice of drawing districts based on race, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has indicated the state likely would jump into the mid-decade redistricting race.

Shaniqua McClendon, head of Vote Save America, said the GOP’s broad redistricting push underscores why Democrats should follow California’s lead — even if they dislike the tactic.

“Democrats have to be serious about what’s at stake. I know they don’t like the means, but we have to think about the end,” McClendon said. “We have to be able to take back the House — it’s the only way we’ll be able to hold Trump accountable.”

In New York, a lawsuit filed last week charging that a congressional district disenfranchises Black and Latino voters would be a “Hail Mary” for Democrats hoping to improve their chances in the 2026 midterms there, said Daly, of FairVote.

Utah also could give Democrats an outside opportunity to pick up a seat, said Dave Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. A court ruling this summer required Utah Republican leaders to redraw the state’s congressional map, resulting in two districts that Democrats potentially could flip.

Wasserman described the various redistricting efforts as an “arms race … Democrats are using what Republicans have done in Texas as a justification for California, and Republicans are using California as justification for their actions in other states.”

‘Political tribalism’

Some political observers said the outcome of California’s election could inspire still more political maneuvering in other states.

“I think passage of Proposition 50 in California could show other states that voters might support mid-decade redistricting when necessary, when they are under attack,” said Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School where he directs the New York Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. “I think it would certainly provide impetus in places like New York to move forward.”

Similar to California, New York would need to ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment, but that could not take place in time for the midterms.

“It might also embolden Republican states that have been hesitant to redistrict to say, ‘Well if the voters in California support mid-decade redistricting, maybe they’ll support it here too,’” Wice said.

To Erik Nisbet, the director of the Center for Communications & Public Policy at Northwestern University, the idea that the mid-decade redistricting trend is gaining traction is part of a broader problem.

“It is a symptom of this 20-year trend in increasing polarization and political tribalism,” he said. “And, unfortunately, our tribalism is now breaking out, not only between each other, but it’s breaking out between states.”

He argued that both parties are sacrificing democratic norms and the ideas of procedural fairness as well as a representative democracy for political gain.

“I am worried about what the end result of this will be,” he said.

Ceballos reported from Washington, Mehta from Los Angeles.

SAN DIEGO — As a bemused crowd of would-be illegal immigrants looked on from a makeshift hilltop refreshment stand, Republican presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan on Tuesday stepped into a confrontational arena that sums up his often confrontational campaign: the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I am calling attention to a national disgrace,” Buchanan told reporters, his suit and shoes dusty from a Border Patrol tour of the rugged terrain. “The failure of the national government of the United States to protect the borders of the United States from an illegal invasion that involves at least a million aliens a year. As a consequence of that, we have social problems and economic problems. And drug problems.”

Saying that up to 1,000 illegal immigrants were among those arrested during the Los Angeles riots, Buchanan repeated his previous calls to fortify key sections of the border with ditches and concrete-buttressed fences and to deploy U.S. military forces there if necessary.

Buchanan also advocated doubling the size of the Border Patrol to 6,600 agents, staffing immigration checkpoints on Interstates 5 and 15 24 hours a day and charging a $2 toll on legal crossings to pay for tougher enforcement.

“I don’t believe in being brutal on anyone,” he said. “But I do think that any country that wants to call itself a nation has got to defend its borders.”

Illegal immigration lies at the heart of Buchanan’s vision of what is wrong with America; the issue is perhaps the strongest attention-getter in Southern California for his fading GOP challenge.

Buchanan’s first visit to the San Diego-Tijuana border made for strange media theater. The candidate arrived by four-wheel-drive vehicle to a hot, dusty ridge overlooking Smuggler’s Canyon, a prime crossing area, where a new corrugated steel barrier meets an old, battered chain-link fence. Buchanan supporters in suits and ties reached across the international line to buy soft drinks at a makeshift refreshment stand.

About 25 Mexican migrants, most of whom had heard only vaguely of Buchanan, chatted with security agents and tried to make sense of the pin-striped visitor.

“He’s a presidential candidate?” asked a man named Guillermo. “Does he speak Spanish? Ask him if he can pull the migra out of here for 24 hours, then he can do whatever he wants. Ask him if he can give me a ride to Los Angeles.”

Filoberto, a wiry 23-year-old from Mexicali, scoffed when informed that Buchanan advocates sealing the border and giving the Border Patrol more agents and equipment.

“They have all kinds of technology,” said Filoberto, who was waiting to make his fourth attempt at crossing in a week. “But we are smarter; people are smarter than machines. We are still going to cross. In fact, as soon as all of you people get out of here, we are going to go for it.”

To the discomfort of Buchanan aides, neo-Nazi Tom Metzger showed up with a handful of raucous supporters.

Metzger’s group hovered at the edges of the press conference, yelling insults about illegal immigrants, Republicans and Democrats.

Metzger, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Aryan Resistance, was recently convicted of unlawful assembly in a Los Angeles cross-burning. He was sentenced to six months in jail but released after 46 days because of his wife’s illness and subsequent death. He said he wanted to talk to Buchanan about getting “action” to control the border.

But Buchanan rejected Metzger, saying that if Metzger contributed money to his campaign it would be returned. “I don’t have anything to do with him,” he said.

Buchanan said he thinks that he can influence President Bush’s policy–despite the fact that Bush has the GOP nomination locked up. “I think we are going to get George Bush to do something about this before that election, or at least speak to this,” he said. “He’d better do it, or he’s going to have problems.”

Oct. 31 (UPI) — Ohio’s representatives approved a bi-partisan redistricting map that might help Republicans gain more seats, but Democrats OK’d the plan because the others offered were worse for them.

The Ohio Redistricting Commission approved the measure unanimously Friday.

“Coming to an agreement that is in the best interest of the state, not just the most vocal elements of either party, I think is some of the toughest things that we can do as elected leaders in 2025,” said state Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

But Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio said it was the best option among bad ones.

“Facing this impossible challenge with no certain path to preserve a fair map, we worked toward compromise,” said Antonio, D-Lakewood.

Democrats faced a Friday deadline because the Ohio constitution allows Republicans to create a map without Democrats in November. They were also concerned about a case before the U.S. Supreme Court on the Voting Rights Act.

Democratic Rep. Emilia Sykes of Akron will get a slightly more favorable northeast Ohio district, but it will still be very competitive, Punchbowl News reported.

Toledo Rep. Marcy Kaptur‘s district will be more difficult to win, but not impossible. She’s the longest-serving representative in the United States, and she won a close race in 2024. Her district chose President Donald Trump by seven points.

“Let the Columbus politicians make their self-serving maps and play musical chairs, I will fight on for the people and ask the voters for their support next year,” she wrote on X.

Cincinnati Rep. Greg Landsman also saw his chances at re-election diminished.

Ohio House Minority Leader Dani Isaacsohn, D-Cincinnati, said all of Ohio’s Democratic congresspeople could still win.

“This is a district Greg Landsman can and will win in, and that’s what the people of Cincinnati deserve,” Isaacsohn said.

Ohio had a failed ballot measure in 2024 that would have put residents in charge of making district maps.

“There’s a lot of anger and frustration in this room, and it’s not just the result of this most recent betrayal. The anger and frustration has been years in the making,” said Mia Lewis, associate director at Common Cause Ohio, the Dispatch reported.

“You have shown all of us, all of Ohio, that politicians cannot be involved in drawing district lines.”

Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, said the people were denied being part of the process. “Republican and Democratic voters feel like their parties sold them out — and they’re both right.”

A Nov. 4 statewide ballot measure pushed by California Democrats to help the party’s efforts to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives and stifle President Trump’s agenda has a substantial lead in a new poll released on Thursday.

Six out of 10 likely voters support Proposition 50, the proposal by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies to redraw the state’s congressional districts to try to increase the number of Democrats in Congress, according to a survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by The Times. About 38% of likely voters oppose the ballot measure.

Notable in an off-year special election about the arcane and complicated process of redistricting, 71% of likely voters said they had heard a significant amount of information about the ballot measure, according to the poll.

“That’s extraordinary,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the IGS poll. “Even though it’s kind of an esoteric topic that doesn’t affect their daily lives, it’s something voters are paying attention to.”

That may be because roughly $158 million has been donated in less than three months to the main campaign committees supporting and opposing the measure, according to campaign fundraising reports filed with the state last week. Voters in the state have been flooded with political ads.

Californians watching Tuesday night’s World Series game between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Toronto Blue Jays saw that firsthand.

In the first minutes of the game, former President Obama, Newsom, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other prominent Democrats spoke in favor of Proposition 50 in an ad that probably cost at least $250,000 to air, according to a Democratic media buyer who is not associated with the campaign.

According to the survey, the breakdown among voters was highly partisan, with more than 9 out of 10 Democrats supporting Proposition 50 and a similar proportion of Republicans opposing it. Among voters who belong to other parties, or identify as “no party preference,” 57% favored the ballot measure, while 39% opposed it.

Only 2% of the likely voters surveyed said they were undecided, which DiCamillo said was highly unusual.

Historically, undecided voters, particularly independents, often end up opposing ballot measures they are uncertain about, preferring to stick with the status quo, he said.

“Usually there was always a rule — look at the undecideds in late-breaking polls, and assume most would vote no,” he said. “But this poll shows there are very few of them out there. Voters have a bead on this one.”

In the voter-rich urban areas of Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay area, Proposition 50 led by wide margins, the poll found. Voters in Orange County, the Inland Empire and the Central Valley were pretty evenly divided.

Redistricting battles are underway in states across the nation, but California’s Proposition 50 has received a major share of national attention and donations. The Newsom committee supporting Proposition 50 has raised far more money than the two main committees opposing it, so much so that the governor this week told supporters to stop sending checks.

The U.S. House of Representatives is controlled by the GOP but is narrowly divided. The party that wins control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections will determine whether Trump can continue enacting his agenda or whether he is the subject of investigations and possibly another impeachment effort.

California’s 52 congressional districts — the most of any state — currently are drawn by a voter-approved independent commission once every decade following the U.S. census.

But after Trump urged GOP leaders in Texas this summer to redraw their districts to bolster the number of Republicans in Congress, Newsom and other California Democrats decided in August to ask voters to allow a rare mid-decade partisan redrawing of the state’s district boundaries. If passed, Proposition 50 could potentially add five more Democrats to the state’s congressional delegation.

Supporters of Proposition 50 have painted their effort as a proxy fight against Trump and his policies that have overwhelmingly affected Californians, such as immigration raids and the deployment of the National Guard on the streets of Los Angeles.

Opponents of the proposition have focused on the mechanics of redistricting, arguing the ballot measure subverts the will of California voters who enacted the independent redistricting commission more than a decade ago.

“The results suggest that Democrats have succeeded in framing the debate surrounding the proposition around support or opposition to President Trump and national Republicans, rather than about voters’ more general preference for nonpartisan redistricting,” Eric Schickler, co-director of IGS, said in a statement.

Early voting data suggest the pro-Proposition 50 message has been successful.

As of Tuesday, nearly 5 million Californians — about 21% of the state’s 23 million registered voters — had cast ballots, according to trackers run by Democratic and Republican strategists.

Democrats greatly outnumber Republicans among the state’s registered voters, and they have outpaced them in returning ballots, 52% to 27%. Voters who do not have a party preference or who support other political parties have returned 21% of the ballots.

The Berkeley/L.A. Times poll findings mirrored recent surveys by the Public Policy Institute of California, CBS News/YouGov and Emerson College.

Among voters surveyed by the Berkeley/L.A. Times poll, 67% of Californians who had already voted supported Proposition 50, while 33% said they had weighed in against the ballot measure.

The proposition also had an edge among those who planned to vote but had not yet cast their ballots, with 57% saying they planned to support the effort and 40% saying they planned to oppose it.

However, 70% of voters who plan to cast ballots in person on Nov. 4, election day, said they would vote against Proposition 50, according to the poll. Less than 3 in 10 who said they would vote at their local polling place said they would support the rare mid-decade redistricting.

These numbers highlight a recent shift in how Americans vote. Historically, Republicans voted by mail early, while Democrats cast ballots on election day. But this dynamic was upended in recent years after Trump questioned the security of early voting and mail voting, including just recently when he criticized Proposition 50.

“No mail-in or ‘Early’ Voting, Yes to Voter ID! Watch how totally dishonest the California Prop Vote is! Millions of Ballots being ‘shipped,’” Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social. “GET SMART REPUBLICANS, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!”

GOP leaders across the state have pushed back at such messaging without calling out the president. Urging Republicans to vote early, they argue that waiting to cast ballots only gives Democrats a greater advantage in California elections.

Among the arguments promoted by the campaigns, likely voters agreed with every one posited by the supporters of Proposition 50, notably that the ballot measure would help Democrats win control of the House, while standing up to Trump and his attempts to rig the 2026 election, according to the poll. But they also agreed that the ballot measure would further diminish the power of the GOP in California, and that they didn’t trust partisan state lawmakers to draw congressional districts.

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 8,141 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from Oct. 20 to 27. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

President Trump urged California voters on Sunday not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early in the California election about redistricting — the direct opposite of the message from state GOP leaders.

Repeating his false claim that former President Biden beat him in 2020 because the election was rigged, Trump argued that the November special election about redistricting in California would be rigged, as would the 2026 midterm election to determine control of Congress.

“No mail-in or ‘Early’ Voting, Yes to Voter ID! Watch how totally dishonest the California Prop Vote is! Millions of Ballots being ‘shipped,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “GET SMART REPUBLICANS, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!”

Proposition 50, a ballot measure proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts to boost their party’s ranks in the U.S. House of Representatives, is on the Nov. 4 ballot.

The rare mid-decade redistricting effort was in response to Trump urging GOP-led states, initially Texas, to increase the number of Republicans in the House in the 2026 midterm election to allow him to continue implementing his agenda in his final two years in the White House.

Newsom responded to Trump on X: “Ramblings of an old man that knows he’s going to LOSE.”

Trump has not weighed in on the merits of Proposition 50, while prominent Democrats who support it have, including former President Obama.

More than 4 million mail-in ballots — 18% of the ballots sent to California’s 23 million voters — had been returned as of Friday, according to a vote tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed maps on the ballot. Democrats continue to outpace Republicans in returning ballots, 51% to 28%. Voters registered without a party preference or with other political parties have returned 21% of the ballots.

Early-voting centers also opened in 29 counties on Saturday.

Turnout figures were alarming Republicans leaders before Trump’s message.

“It’s simple. Republicans need to stop complaining and vote. We ask and ask and ask and yet turnout still lags,” the San Diego GOP posted on X. “To win this one GOP turnout needs to be materially better than average. It’s very doable but won’t just happen. Work it.”

Republicans historically voted early while Democrats were more likely to cast ballots on election day. Trump upended this dynamic, creating dissonance with GOP leaders across the nation who recognized the value of banking early votes. And it completely contradicts the messaging by the opponents of Proposition 50.

Jessica Millan Patterson, a former chair of the state GOP and leader of the “No on Prop. 50 — Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab” committee, has been a longtime proponent of urging Republican voters to cast ballots as early and conveniently as possible.

“Sacramento politicians rushed this costly election for partisan gain, and mistakes have been made,” she said Sunday evening. “If Californians want change from our state’s failed one-party rule, it starts by turning out to vote no on Proposition 50.”

Reporting from Santa Clara, Calif. — Some of the major Republicans vying to become California’s next governor or U.S. senator have more money than others. Some are better known. Some are more in sync with their party’s traditional views.

But what all five have in common as they look toward the June 8 primary is a determination to tap what they see as public fury over the failures of government.

“Our government is out of control and out of touch, and so we will take it back and we will make it work,” U.S. Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina told hundreds of delegates at a weekend convention of Republicans in the Silicon Valley.

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) and former Rep. Tom Campbell, her rivals in the race to challenge Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer, took different approaches. But each appealed just as overtly to the large share of California Republicans who identify with the conservative “tea party” movement.

Gubernatorial candidates Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman did the same as they vied to challenge presumptive Democratic nominee Jerry Brown.

For all of the major Republican candidates, capturing the public mood of revolt is key not only to succeeding in the primary but also to carrying momentum through the November general election, where voters have historically sided more with Democrats.

“These are Republican voters who — not only here, but all over the country — are very, very frustrated at what they’re seeing, and they’re treating the state government with the same contempt as they’re treating the Obama administration,” said Wayne Johnson, a Republican strategist and former Poizner advisor.

“People are going to be willing to pull the lever for people who are saying pretty aggressive things this time around.”

Most aggressive over the weekend was Poizner, the state insurance commissioner. Treading on sensitive political territory, he promised to deny all public benefits to undocumented immigrants and to stop any more from crossing the Mexican border into California.

“If I have to, I’ll send the National Guard to the border,” he told Republicans at a dinner Saturday. “If that doesn’t work, I’ll send the California Highway Patrol to the border. And if that doesn’t work, I’ll send the California Republican Party to the border.”

Poizner also promised to curb welfare, an issue — like immigration — that Republicans last pushed hard during the economic downturn of the 1990s.

Whitman, too, has called for scaling back welfare. But by and large, her attempts to ride tea party anger were subtler than Poizner’s.

“Voters are tired of runaway spending,” Whitman, a former chief executive of EBay, said in a dinner speech Friday. “They are tired of bigger government. And they have had it with broken promises.”

Roughly four of five Republicans see California as moving in the wrong direction, a level of discontent not seen since the recession of the early 1990s, according to a recent Public Policy Institute of California survey.

“The candidates are trying to tap into that very deep skepticism and pessimism and cynicism seen among Republican voters today,” said Mark Baldassare, president of the institute.

The large portion of undecided voters in both the gubernatorial and Senate primaries makes it that much more important for candidates to identify with the public anger.

In the Senate race, Fiorina, a former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, applauded signs of a popular uprising, saying millions of Americans feel betrayed by “detached and arrogant leadership” in Washington.

“Whether we are conservatives, moderates, independents, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, tea partiers, we are all now members of one party; we are now members of the Had Enough party,” she told Republicans at a luncheon Saturday.

DeVore, an Irvine assemblyman popular among the party’s conservative rank and file, described Democrats as an ominous threat.

“We are facing statists who have it as their objective to trample the Constitution, to submerge future generations under a mountain of debt and to fundamentally transform America into a state that none of us would recognize,” he said.

He described himself as the candidate best suited to draw support from tea party activists who want “to rescue America and to rescue California.”

As for Campbell, his support of temporary state tax hikes has made it tougher to position himself as a champion of the movement, but he tried nonetheless.

“I am running,” he said, “because our freedom is at risk, threatened by a soft socialism that inserts government into every corner of our lives.”

Poizner strategist Stuart Stevens described the voters’ mood as “hot.”

Alluding to the 1976 film about a TV anchor who builds a following of angry Americans, he said, “This is ‘Network’: Mad as hell, not going to take it anymore.”

michael.finnegan @latimes.com

[email protected]

Oct. 21 (UPI) — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination on Tuesday to head the Office of Special Counsel after his Republican support in the Senate crumbled following the release of his racist and inflammatory text messages.

Ingrassia announced his decision in a post on X just a day after Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters that the 30-year-old lawyer and political commentator did not have enough support in the chamber and asked the White House to rethink his nomination.

“I appreciate the overwhelming support that I have received throughout this process and will continue to serve President Trump and this administration to Make America Great Again!” he wrote.

The development is a rare instance of Senate Republicans publicly drawing a line with President Donald Trump over his picks for who works in his administration.

Ingrassia has been nominated by Trump to lead the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency responsible for protecting government whistleblowers and investigates complaints of wrongdoing.

His nomination began unraveling after Politico reported on Monday on a series of his texts where he said he had a “Nazi streak” and that the federal holiday celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. should be “tossed into the seventh circle of hell where it belongs.”

Ingrassia used an Italian slur for Black people, according to Politico. He also wrote “Never trust a chinaman or Indian” in reference to former Indian-American Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.

Following the report, Republican Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Rick Scott of Florida and James Lankford of Oklahoma all signaled that they would not vote to confirm Ingrassia, Semafor reported. Republicans hold a 53-seat majority in the chamber.

For the most part, Trump’s controversial nominees have cleared the chamber and Republicans even changed the chamber’s rules to overcome Democratic opposition. However, Trump recently withdrew his nomination of E.J. Antoni to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Ingrassia serves as the Trump administration’s go-between with the Justice Department and previously represented Andrew Tate, who has been accused of human trafficking, money laundering and other charges, which he denies.

Ingrassia performed poorly in a meeting with committee staff ahead of a confirmation hearing, Axios reported.

“There’s just some different statements he’s made in the past that need clarification,” Lankford told the news outlet at the time.

RALEIGH, N.C. — Democrats rallying Tuesday against a new U.S. House map proposed by North Carolina Republicans seeking another GOP seat at President Trump’s behest acknowledged they’ll probably be unable to halt the redraw for now. But they vowed to defeat the plan in the long run.

The new map offered by Republican legislative leaders seeks to stop the reelection of Democratic Rep. Don Davis, one of North Carolina’s three Black representatives, by redrawing two of the state’s 14 congressional districts. Statewide election data suggest the proposal would result in Republicans winning 11 of those seats, up from the current 10.

The proposal attempts to satisfy Trump’s call for states led by Republicans to conduct mid-decade redistricting to gain more seats and retain his party’s grip on Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. Democrats need to gain just three more seats to seize control of the House, and the president’s party historically has lost seats in midterm elections.

With Republicans in the majority in both General Assembly chambers and state law preventing Democratic Gov. Josh Stein from using his veto stamp against a redistricting plan, the GOP-drawn map appeared headed to enactment after final House votes as soon as Wednesday. The state Senate gave its final approval early Tuesday on a party-line vote. A House redistricting committee debated the plan later Tuesday.

Still, about 300 protesters, Democratic Party officials and lawmakers gathering outside the old state Capitol pledged repeatedly Tuesday that redrawing the congressional map would have negative consequences for the GOP at the ballot box in 2026 and beyond. Litigation to challenge the enactment on the map also is likely on allegations of unlawful racial gerrymandering.

“We know we may not have the ability to stop the Republicans in Raleigh right now … but we are here to show that people across this state and across this nation are watching them,” North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said to cheers.

The gathering served Democrats to censure state Republicans they accuse of agreeing to kneel to Trump through a corrupt redrawing of district lines to target Davis.

State GOP leaders defended their action, saying Trump has won the state’s electoral votes all three times that he’s run for president — albeit narrowly — and thus merits more potential support in Congress.

The national redistricting battle began over the summer when Trump urged Republican-led Texas to reshape its U.S. House districts. After Texas lawmakers acted, California Democrats reciprocated by passing their own plan, which still needs voter approval in November.

Republicans argue that other Democratic-leaning states had already given themselves a disproportionate number of seats well before this national redistricting fight started.

“It is incumbent upon us to react to this environment, to respond to this environment, and not let these tactics that have happened in blue states dominate the control of Congress,” state Sen. Ralph Hise, the map’s chief author, said during Tuesday’s Senate debate.

Seminera and Robertson write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that he had commuted the sentence of former U.S. Rep. George Santos, who is serving more than seven years in federal prison after pleading guilty to fraud and identity theft charges.

Joseph Murray, one of Santos’ lawyers, told the Associated Press late Friday that the former lawmaker was released from the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, N.J., around 11 p.m. and was greeted outside the facility by his family.

The New York Republican was sentenced in April after admitting last year to deceiving donors and stealing the identities of 11 people — including his own family members — to make donations to his campaign.

He reported to FCI Fairton on July 25 and was housed in a minimum-security prison camp with fewer than 50 other inmates.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump posted on his social media platform. He said he had “just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY.”

“Good luck George, have a great life!” Trump said.

Santos’ account on X, which has been active throughout his roughly 84 days in prison, reposted a screenshot of Trump’s Truth Social post Friday.

During his time behind bars, Santos has been writing regular dispatches in a local newspaper on Long Island, N.Y., in which he mainly complained about the prison conditions.

In his latest letter, he pleaded to Trump directly, citing his fealty to the president’s agenda and to the Republican Party.

“Sir, I appeal to your sense of justice and humanity — the same qualities that have inspired millions of Americans to believe in you,” he wrote in the South Shore Press on Monday. “I humbly ask that you consider the unusual pain and hardship of this environment and allow me the opportunity to return to my family, my friends, and my community.”

Santos’ commutation is Trump’s latest high-profile act of clemency for former Republican politicians since retaking the White House in January.

Like Santos, Trump has been convicted of fraud. He was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts in a case related to paying hush money to a porn actor. He is the only president in U.S. history convicted of a felony.

In granting clemency to Santos, Trump was rewarding a figure who has drawn scorn from within his own party.

After becoming the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress in 2022, Santos served less than a year after it was revealed that he had fabricated much of his life story.

On the campaign trail, Santos had claimed he was a successful business consultant with Wall Street cred and a sizable real estate portfolio. But when his resume came under scrutiny, Santos eventually admitted he had never graduated from Baruch College — or been a standout player on the Manhattan college’s volleyball team, as he had claimed. He had never worked at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

He wasn’t even Jewish. Santos insisted he meant he was “Jew-ish” because his mother’s family had a Jewish background, even though he was raised Catholic.

In truth, the then-34-year-old was struggling financially and faced eviction.

Santos was charged in 2023 with stealing from donors and his campaign, fraudulently collecting unemployment benefits and lying to Congress about his wealth.

Within months, he was expelled from the U.S. House of Representatives — with 105 Republicans joining with Democrats to make Santos just the sixth member in the chamber’s history to be ousted by colleagues.

Santos pleaded guilty as he was set to stand trial.

Still, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) urged the White House to commute Santos’ sentence, saying in a letter sent just days into his prison term that the punishment was “a grave injustice” and a product of judicial overreach.

Greene was among those who cheered the announcement Friday. But Rep. Nick LaLota, a Republican who represents part of Long Island and has been highly critical of Santos, said in a post on social media that Santos “didn’t merely lie” and his crimes “warrant more than a three-month sentence.”

“He should devote the rest of his life to demonstrating remorse and making restitution to those he wronged,” LaLota said.

Santos’ clemency appears to clear not just his prison term, but also any “further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions,” according to a copy of Trump’s order posted on X by Ed Martin, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney.

As part of his guilty plea, Santos had agreed to pay restitution of $373,750 and forfeiture of $205,003.

In explaining his reason for granting Santos clemency, Trump claimed the lies Santos told about himself were no worse than misleading statements U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal — a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration —had made about his military record.

Blumenthal apologized 15 years ago for implying that he served in Vietnam, when he was stateside in the Marine Reserve during the war. The senator was never accused of violating any law.

“This is far worse than what George Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!” Trump wrote.

Marcelo writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Michael R. Sisak in New York and Susan Haigh in Connecticut contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.

That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.

The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.

“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.

Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”

The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.

But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.

If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.

“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”

Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.

As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.

But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.

Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”

In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.

But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”

That issue is now before the court in the Louisiana case.

It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.

Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.

But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.

Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.

SACRAMENTO — Though raging thousands of miles to the east, the entrenched stalemate in Washington over federal spending and the ensuing government shutdown has thrust California’s expansive healthcare policies into the center of the pitched, partisan debate.

The Trump administration and the Republican leaders in Congress continue to use California, and the benefits the state has extended to eligible immigrants regardless of their legal status, as a cudgel against Democrats trying to extend federal subsidies for taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage.

President Trump claimed recently that Democrats “want to have illegal aliens come into our country and get massive healthcare at the cost to everybody else.” Democrats called Trump’s assertion an absolute lie, accusing Republicans of wanting to slash federal healthcare benefits to Americans in need to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

“California has led the nation in expanding access to affordable healthcare, but Donald Trump is ripping it away,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said.

In return for their votes to reopen the government, Democratic leaders in Congress want to reverse Medicaid cuts made in Republicans’ tax and spending bill passed this summer and continue subsidies through the Affordable Care Act, a program long targeted by Republicans. The subsidies, which come in the form of a tax credit, help lower health insurance costs for millions of Americans.

Can immigrants in the country illegally enroll in federal healthcare programs?

No. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program or Medicare, or coverage through the Affordable Care Act, according to KFF, an independent health research organization.

Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco) held a virtual town hall last week in which he highlighted the “misinformation” about immigrants and healthcare.

“I just want to be completely clear that federal funding does not pay for health insurance for undocumented immigrants, period,” Mullin said.

Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, said the debate is really over “who can benefit from the federal dollars that are flowing to all states, including California,” to help lower costs for health insurance.

Covered California serves as a marketplace exchange for state residents seeking healthcare insurance under the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, allowing them to select from name-brand insurance providers and choose from a variety of coverage plans. The vast majority of Californians receive federal subsidies to lower their premiums, including many middle-income families who had become eligible when Congress expanded the financial assistance in 2021.

Those expanded subsidies will expire at the end of the year, and Democrats are demanding that they be extended as part of any deal to reopen the government before they vote in favor of what is known as a continuing resolution, or a temporary funding bill to keep the federal government running.

“From the very beginning, undocumented or illegal — whatever terminology you want to use — individuals were never eligible for those tax credits, never eligible for those cost-sharing reductions, and in fact, and not even eligible to come onto a marketplace and buy coverage if they paid the full costs,” Altman said.

California does offer state healthcare coverage for undocumented immigrants

Through Medi-Cal, the state’s version of the federal Medicaid program, some medical coverage is offered, regardless of immigration status. The majority of that money comes from the state.

H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs at the California Department of Finance, said the cost to provide Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants in the current fiscal year is just over $12.5 billion.

State money accounts for $11.2 billion and the remaining difference is reimbursed with federal funding because it’s used to cover emergency services, Palmer explained.

“Under current law, hospitals that receive Medicaid are required to provide emergency care, including labor and delivery, to individuals regardless of their citizenship status,” he said. “That goes back to a budget law that was approved by Congress in 1986 and signed by President Ronald Reagan.”

The 1986 law is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and allows for emergency healthcare for all persons.

Some Republicans have raised other concerns about the state’s use of managed care organization taxes.

The MCO tax is a federally allowable Medicaid funding mechanism that imposes a tax on health insurance providers that charge fixed monthly payments for services and is based on the number of people enrolled in plans each month. The revenue from the tax can then be used to support Medicaid expenditures with federal matching funds.

Critics say California exploits a so-called loophole: By increasing the MCO tax, and subsequently bringing in more matching federal funds, California can then put more of its own state money toward healthcare for undocumented immigrants.

“We are bringing in all those additional federal dollars and then reallocating other money away so that we can provide about $9.6 billion for Medi-Cal for undocumented and illegal immigrants,” said Assemblymember David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno). “The MCO tax was never supposed to be weaponized in that process.”

White House officials also contend that California could not afford to put resources toward benefits for undocumented immigrants if it had not received the extra federal money — a claim Newsom disputes.

“What the president is saying, he’s lying,” Newsom said at a recent event. “Speaker [Mike] Johnson’s lying. They’re lying to the American people. It’s shameful. … I guess they’re trying to connect their displeasure with what California and many other states do with state resources in this space, and that is a very separate conversation.”

California is not alone in offering such healthcare to immigrants in the country illegally

A “small but growing” number of states offer state-funded coverage to certain groups of low-income people regardless of immigration status, according to KFF.

California became the first state in the nation last year to offer healthcare to all low-income undocumented immigrants, an expansion spearheaded by Newsom.

Newsom has since partially walked back that policy after the costs exceeded expectations. Starting in January, most adult Medi-Cal applications will be blocked — although current enrollees can continue to renew — and some adults will be required to pay monthly premiums. Undocumented minors under age 19, who became eligible for Medi-Cal nearly a decade ago, will not be affected by the changes.

The upcoming changes to the state’s policies and the enrollment freeze will help decrease the overall costs, which are projected to fall to about $10.1 billion during the next fiscal year, according to the California Department of Finance.

While the governor’s shift angered his most progressive allies and renewed speculation that he is tacking to the political middle ahead of his expected run for president in 2028, the Democratic-led Legislature approved the Medi-Cal eligibility changes in June.

Public opinion on the issue may also be changing.

Fifty-eight percent of adults in California were opposed to providing healthcare for undocumented immigrants, according to a poll released in June from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. This was a notable shift, as previous surveys from the institute conducted between 2015 to 2023 showed the majority approved.

Who would lose coverage if the tax credits end and Medicaid cuts aren’t reversed?

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Republicans this summer, ends healthcare subsidies that were extended during the pandemic and makes other cuts to programs. According to the White House, the bill “contains the most important America First healthcare reforms ever enacted.”

“The policies represent a comprehensive effort to address waste, fraud, and abuse to strengthen the healthcare system for the most vulnerable Americans, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are focused on American citizens and do not subsidize healthcare for illegal immigrants,” the White House said in a statement on Oct. 1.

Among other things, the law limits Medicare and other program eligibility to certain groups, including green card holders, effective July 2025. Other lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylees, are no longer eligible, according to KFF.

It’s estimated that the eligibility restrictions will result in about 1.4 million lawfully present immigrants becoming uninsured, reduce federal spending by about $131 billion and increase federal revenue by $4.8 billion as of 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

At the same time, a broader group of lawfully present immigrants, including refugees, will lose access to subsidized coverage through the ACA marketplace by January 2027.

Covered California’s Altman estimated that there are about 119,000 immigrants in California who are covered and would lose eligibility for financial assistance.

More broadly, Altman and other healthcare experts predict that healthcare premiums will skyrocket if the ACA tax credits expire.

Reporting from Washington and Honolulu — House Republican leaders, bowing to pressure from both the White House and their Senate colleagues, agreed to a stopgap measure that will forestall a tax increase on American workers that was scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.

The deal is expected to come to a vote Friday under procedures that would require all members in both chambers to agree. If any members object, Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) would call the House back into full session next week for a vote, he told reporters Thursday.

In addition to keeping Social Security payroll taxes at current levels for an additional two months, the deal would maintain unemployment insurance for people who have been jobless for an extended period and would block a cut in the payments doctors receive for treating Medicare patients. After Jan. 1, congressional negotiators would meet to decide how to extend the provisions for the rest of 2012.

Accepting the deal would mark a significant defeat for House conservatives, who in past confrontations have wrested major concessions from President Obama and congressional Democrats. Those previous standoffs, however, involved efforts to reduce spending. This time, the House was in the far trickier position of appearing to oppose a tax cut, and the deal almost entirely followed the terms negotiated in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Agreement came hours after Obama and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, adversaries who rarely agree, both urged House Republicans to accept a bill to keep payroll taxes at their current level.

“This is an issue where an overwhelming number of people in both parties agree. How can we not get that done?” Obama said at a White House event, where he read letters from workers who detailed the hardships that a tax increase would cause. “Enough is enough.”

Earlier in the day, McConnell split publicly from his House colleagues and issued a statement saying Americans “shouldn’t face the uncertainty of a New Year’s Day tax hike.” The House should accept the two-month extension that passed the Senate on Saturday, McConnell said.

The Senate had approved its stopgap measure with bipartisan support, 89 to 10. But when Boehner presented it to House Republicans last weekend, conservatives rebelled.

The impasse largely concerned how to pay for extending the tax cut for a full year. The House had rejected the Democrats’ idea to increase the income tax on millionaires, instead passing a one-year extension that covered the cost by spending cuts and new revenue. The Senate’s stopgap measure would raise fees on federally backed mortgages.

As Thursday wore on, House Republicans who had previously balked began to change their stance. One statement came from Rep. Sean Duffy, a tea party-backed freshman from Wisconsin, who said that he still didn’t like the two-month plan, but that the Senate had “left us with few other options.”

Failure to pass some payroll tax bill by Dec. 31 would mean an increase for the average family of about $40 per biweekly paycheck, or about $1,000 a year.

Conservatives disliked the payroll tax proposal for several reasons. It would increase the deficit and do little to help the economy, they said. And they raised concerns that because payroll taxes fund Social Security, any reduction would hurt that program’s long-term stability, even though the deal calls for the fund to be replenished. Many argued that their constituents would regard the tax increase as acceptable and would rather see taxes go up than give in to one of Obama’s legislative priorities.

But as the reality of a New Year’s tax increase began to sink in, the unpopularity of the idea became increasingly clear. Senior Republicans began warning that their party risked the kind of political damage it suffered 16 years ago with the Christmas-season shutdown of the government — a move that helped reelect then-President Bill Clinton.

Democrats were clearly enjoying the spectacle of Republicans trying to justify opposition to a tax cut. “This is a big moment,” said Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg, who was Clinton’s pollster. Republicans “put the spotlight on themselves” on an issue involving “money coming out of your pocket,” he said. “I don’t think it could be more powerful symbolically.”

Obama did his best to heighten Republican discomfort at his White House event, where he stood surrounded by ordinary citizens and read stories from people who had written to the White House about what a $40 cut in take-home pay would mean for them.

A teacher said she wouldn’t be able to go to the thrift store to buy pencils and books for her fourth-grade class, Obama said. A man from Rhode Island said that $40 buys three nights worth of home heating oil. A Wisconsin man wrote that he would have to give up some of the weekly 200-mile drives he makes to visit his father-in-law in a nursing home.

“What’s happening right now is exactly why people just get so frustrated with Washington,” Obama said. “This is it.”

Inside the White House, officials had believed all along that the payroll tax cut eventually would get renewed. Republicans would not be willing to be tagged as “the cause of taxes going up on 160 million Americans,” one senior White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

At the same time, “their handling of it seemed irrational, so it was hard to know what they were going to do,” the official added.

Republican officials rejected the “irrational” label, but agreed that their handling of the issue had damaged their cause. “It may not have been, politically, the smartest thing in the world,” Boehner told reporters, referring to his caucus’ opposition to the payroll tax bill. “Sometimes it’s hard to do the right thing.”

In the end, however, the agreement came quickly, according to White House and congressional staff who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly.

Thursday morning, Boehner called Obama and asked him to send members of his economic team to Capitol Hill for further negotiations. Obama declined, saying that the House would have to approve the Senate-passed bill first.

With his options running out, Boehner met with senior Republicans, who gave him approval to negotiate terms with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. All agreed that the time had come, aides said.

In the afternoon, Boehner’s aides contacted Reid’s staff. They offered to accept the Senate plan if Reid agreed to two minor matters. One would amend the Senate bill to avoid new tax-reporting requirements that the Senate language might have imposed. The other was an agreement by Reid to appoint Senate members to a conference committee to work out a full-year deal.

Reid, who had orchestrated the successful Democratic negotiating strategy, ratified the agreement in a brief statement: “I am grateful that the voices of reason have prevailed,” he said.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Kathleen Hennessey in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

There’s a reason for the fearsome redistricting fight raging across America. It’s about Democrats trying to rein in Donald Trump and his rogue-elephant regime.

Or, if you’re the country’s aspiring strongman, it’s about avoiding accountability and sanction.

That’s why Trump and fellow Republicans are trying to rig the midterm election, by gerrymandering congressional lines in hopes of boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping its tenuous hold on the House past 2026.

California Democrats are seeking payback by redrawing the state’s congressional lines in hopes of swiping five or more GOP-held seats. Voters will have their say on the matter Nov. 4, when they decide Proposition 50.

Of course, there are two branches of Congress. Why, then, is there so much focus on the House? Simply put, it’s because of the steep odds Democrats face trying to win control of the Senate, which are somewhere between slim and none — with slim last seen cinching his saddle before cantering out of town.

Let’s take a moment for a quick refresher.

Every two years, all 435 House seats are on the ballot. Senate terms are staggered and run six years, so roughly a third of the chamber’s 100 seats are up for a vote in each federal election. In 2026, there will be 35 Senate contests.

Most won’t be remotely competitive.

In fact, more than two dozen of those races are effectively over before they begin, given the advantage one party holds over the other. Mississippi, for instance, will send a Democrat to the U.S. Senate the day that Delaware elects a Republican; both will occur right after Trump and Adam Schiff get inked with matching “I Love L.A.” tattoos.

That leaves nine Senate races that are at least somewhat competitive. Of those, three are considered toss-ups: open-seat contests in Michigan and North Carolina and the race in Georgia, where Democrat Jon Ossoff is seeking a second term.

Democrats need to gain four seats to take control of the Senate, meaning even if they win all three of those even-steven races — which is far from certain — they still need to successfully defend seats in Minnesota and New Hampshire and pick up at least one other GOP-held seat.

That’s where the going gets tough.

Kamala Harris won Maine, which suggests Republican Susan Collins could be vulnerable. But the five-term senator has repeatedly managed to hang on, even in good Democratic years.

The three other races are tougher still.

Ohio used to be a major Midwestern battleground, but it’s grown solidly Republican. Democrats landed their prized recruit, former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who narrowly lost his 2024 reelection bid and may be the only Democrat with a realistic shot at the seat. Still, he’s facing an uphill fight in the special election against Republican Jon Husted, an ex-lieutenant governor who was appointed to replace Vice President JD Vance.

In Iowa, where Republican Joni Ernst is retiring, GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson starts out the favorite in another state that’s grown increasingly red. (Hinson, a USC grad and former KABC-TV intern, has taken to trash-talking the Golden State — “I don’t want to see the country look like California” — because that’s what Republicans do these days.)

Which leaves Texas, land of shattered Democratic dreams.

It’s been more than three decades since the party has won a statewide election. Ever since, Democrats have insisted this is the year they’d end their losing streak.

They’ve tried various approaches. A “dream team” that consisted of a slate of Black, white and Latino nominees. A ticket topped by political celebrity Wendy Davis, of filibuster fame. An out-of-nowhere phenom by the name of Beto O’Rourke. All failed.

This time, Democrats are hoping for an assist from the GOP.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn is seeking his fifth term and faces the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, in a primary that’s already grown fierce and ugly.

Paxton is MAGA down to the soles of his feet, which would normally give him a big advantage in a GOP primary. But his history — allegations of bribery and corruption, an impeachment trial, a messy divorce — have left him in bad odor with many Republicans.

The GOP’s Senate campaign committee and Majority Leader John Thune have aggressively thrown their weight behind Cornyn, though Trump has so far remained neutral.

Democrats would love to run against Paxton, given polls suggesting a competitive race if he’s the nominee. First, though, they’ll have to sort out their own primary.

Supporters cheer as state Rep. James Talarico (D-Austin) kicks off his campaign for U.S. Senate at Centennial Plaza in Round Rock on Sept. 9.

(Mikala Compton/The Austin American-Statesman / Getty Images)

Colin Allred, the former NFL linebacker who lost in November to Ted Cruz, is running again and faces James Talarico, a state representative and seminarian from the Austin area, who’s became an online sensation with his godly persona and viral take-down of conservative pieties. O’Rourke also hasn’t ruled out another try for Senate.

Garry Mauro, a Democrat and former Texas land commissioner, is clear-eyed in assessing his party’s prospects.

“If you run on the right issues and don’t leave yourself a crazy radical … then I think you have a real chance of building a winning race,” he said. But “to say this isn’t a leaning-R state would be Pollyannish, and I’m not Pollyannish.”

Which means counting on the Lone Star to deliver a Democratic-run U.S. Senate is a bit like trusting a drunken gambler to preserve and protect your rent money.

That’s why Democrats are betting the House in hopes of corralling Trump.

Sept. 30 (UPI) — Republican Rep. David Schweikert on Tuesday announced his candidacy to become Arizona’s next governor after serving in the House of Representatives since 2010.

Schweikert, 63, will challenge Rep. Andy Biggs and attorney Karrin Taylor Robson for the GOP nomination ahead of Arizona’s Nov. 3, 2026, gubernatorial election.

“We’re going to try to actually demonstrate to voters what a conservative agenda looks like,” Schweikert told an interviewer as reported by The New York Times.

“I don’t believe there’s anyone in the Southwest in the last 25 years who’s run as many competitive races as I have and yet not given an inch on their conservatism,” he added.

Schweikert announced his candidacy in a series of local interviews, during which he cited dysfunction in Washington, including an inability to pass a Fiscal Year 2026 budget bill, according to NBC News.

He said Arizona is poised to become more prosperous and could see at least a decade of wage growth for its working-class residents.

During his tenure in the House of Representatives, Schweikert fended off a strong challenge from former Rep. Ben Quayle, son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, following redistricting in Arizona for 2012.

He also withstood a 2019 ethics complaint that accused him of illegally using office funds and accepting unlawful campaign contributions but lacked evidence.

Schweikert said the complaint repeated old accusations that were baseless.

Schweikert’s House district includes Scottsdale and suburban areas near Phoenix, and vacating the seat creates an opportunity for the Democratic Party to secure an additional House seat.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs is a Democrat and has said she intends to seek re-election.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a new U.S. House map into law Sunday as part of President Trump’s plan to try to hold on to a narrow Republican majority in next year’s midterm elections.

Kehoe’s signature puts the redrawn districts into state law with a goal of helping Republicans win one additional seat. But it may not be the final action. Opponents are pursuing a referendum petition that, if successful, would force a statewide vote on the new map. They also have brought several lawsuits against it.

U.S. House districts were redrawn across the country after the 2020 census to account for population changes. But Missouri is the third state this year — following Texas, which then triggered a response from California — to try to redraw its districts for partisan advantage, a process known as gerrymandering.

Republican lawmakers in Texas passed a new U.S. House map last month aimed at helping their party win five additional seats. Democratic lawmakers in California countered with their own redistricting plan aimed at winning five more seats, though it still needs voter approval. Other states also are considering redistricting.

Each seat could be critical, because Democrats need to gain just three to win control of the House, which would allow them to check Trump’s agenda and carry out oversight investigations. Trump is trying to stave off a historical trend in which a president’s party typically loses seats in midterm elections.

Republicans currently hold six of Missouri’s eight U.S. House seats. The new map targets a seat held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver by shaving off portions of his Kansas City district and stretching the rest of it into Republican-heavy rural areas. It reduces the number of Black and minority residents in Cleaver’s district, which he has represented for two decades after serving as Kansas City’s first Black mayor.

Cleaver has denounced the gerrymandering plan for using Kansas City’s Troost Avenue — a street that has long segregated Black and white residents — as one of the dividing lines for the new districts.

Kehoe has defended the new map as a means of boosting Missouri’s “conservative, common-sense values” in the nation’s capital, ignoring Trump’s unabashedly partisan justification for it.

“Missourians are more alike than we are different, and our values, across both sides of the aisle, are closer to each other than those of the congressional representation of states like New York, California, and Illinois. We believe this map best represents Missourians, and I appreciate the support and efforts of state legislators, our congressional delegation, and President Trump in getting this map to my desk,” Kehoe said in a statement.

Kehoe signed the new law during an event that was closed to the public.

Opponents are gathering petition signatures seeking to force a statewide referendum on the new map. They have until Dec. 11 to submit around 110,000 valid signatures, which would put the map on hold until a public vote can occur sometime next year.

Meanwhile, opponents also are pursuing a variety of legal challenges. Several lawsuits by voters, including a new one announced Sunday by a Democratic-affiliated group, contend that mid-decade redistricting isn’t allowed under Missouri’s Constitution.

“It was not prompted by the law or a court order; it was the result of Republican lawmakers in Missouri following partisan directives from politicians in Washington, D.C.,” said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, a nonprofit affiliate of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

A previously filed lawsuit by the NAACP contends that no “extraordinary occasion” existed for Kehoe to call lawmakers into session for redistricting.

A lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union also asserts that the new Kansas City-area districts violate state constitutional requirements to be compact and contain equal populations. It notes that the redistricting legislation lists a “KC 811” voting precinct in both the 4th and 5th congressional districts, which it asserts is grounds to invalidate the new map.

But Kehoe’s office said there is no error. It said other government agencies had assigned the same name to two distinct voting locations.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Juan A. Lozano in Houston contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump plans to meet with the top four congressional leaders at the White House on Monday, one day before the deadline to fund the federal government or face a shutdown.

The meeting involving the top Republican leaders, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, as well as the Democratic leaders, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, was confirmed Saturday by a White House official and two other people familiar with the planning. They were granted anonymity to discuss a meeting that has not been announced.

Trump relented after initially refusing to meet with the top Democrats.

“President Trump has once again agreed to a meeting in the Oval Office. As we have repeatedly said, Democrats will meet anywhere, at any time and with anyone to negotiate a bipartisan spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people,” Schumer and Jeffries, both of New York, said in a joint statement Saturday night. “We are resolute in our determination to avoid a government shutdown and address the Republican healthcare crisis. Time is running out.”

The meeting was first reported by Punchbowl News.

The parties have been at a standoff for days as Democrats are pushing for healthcare protections as a condition of their support for the spending plan. Senate Democrats have refused to offer the necessary votes to pass a funding measure that would keep the government open beyond Tuesday.

Absent any action, a shutdown would begin at 12:01 a.m. ET on Wednesday.

Democrats had secured a meeting with Trump until Republican leaders intervened and the president called it off. But Schumer spoke privately with Thune (R-S.D.) on Friday, pushing the majority leader to get a meeting with the president scheduled because of the approaching funding deadline, according to an aide to Schumer.

“As rank-and-file Democrats begin to question their leadership’s unsustainable position, Sen. Schumer is clearly getting nervous,” Ryan Wrasse, a spokesman for Thune, responded Saturday night. “There’s an easy way out, and they’ll get a chance to take it next week.”

Democrats, believing they have leverage, have insisted on key healthcare provisions in exchange for their votes. They want an extension of subsidies that help low- and middle-income earners purchase insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Democrats are also insisting on reversing cuts to Medicaid that were included the GOP’s signature tax measure this summer.

Republicans say that those demands are nonstarters and that they are willing to have a conversation with Democrats on those issues separate from government funding talks. The GOP is asking for a straight extension of current funding for seven weeks.

Earlier last week, Johnson acknowledged he had encouraged Trump not to meet with the Democratic leaders.

“He and I talked about it at length yesterday and the day before. I said, ‘Look, when they get their job done, once they do the basic governing work of keeping the government open, as president, then you can have a meeting” with them, Johnson said on the “Mike & McCarty Show” in his home state of Louisiana. “Of course, it might be productive at that point, but right now, this is just a waste of his time.”

And Thune had said earlier in the week that he “did have a conversation with the president” and offered his opinion on the meeting, which he declined to disclose. “But I think the president speaks for himself, and I think he came to the conclusion that meeting would not be productive,” Thune said.

Democrats have expressed confidence that voters would blame Trump and Republicans for any disruptions in federal services, even though that is uncertain.

Republicans, on the other hand, had been heading toward the work week with plans in the Senate to keep showcasing Democrats’ refusal to agree to the stopgap measure, while the House GOP planned to stay away from Washington in a show of their own unwillingness to engage Democratic alternatives.

That too, came with potential political drawbacks for House Republicans, as Democrats hammered them for being, as Jeffries said, “on vacation.”

Kim and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Rev. Emanuel Cleaver III wants a second civil rights movement in response to President Trump and his fellow Republicans who are redrawing congressional district boundaries to increase their power in Washington.

In Missouri, the GOP’s effort comes at the expense of Cleaver’s father, Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, and many of his Kansas City constituents, who fear a national redistricting scramble will reverse gains Black Americans won two generations ago and will leave them without effective representation on Capitol Hill.

“If we, the people of faith, do not step up, we are going to go back even further,” the younger Cleaver told the St. James Church congregation on a recent Sunday, drawing affirmations of “amen” in the sanctuary where his father, also a minister, launched his first congressional bid in 2004.

Trump and fellow Republicans admit their partisan intent, emboldened by a Supreme Court that has allowed gerrymandering based on voters’ party leanings. Democratic-run California has proposed its own redraw to mitigate GOP gains elsewhere.

Yet new maps in Texas and Missouri — drafted in unusual mid-decade redistricting efforts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections — are meant to enable Republican victories by manipulating how districts are drawn.

Civil rights advocates, leaders and affected voters say that amounts to race-based gerrymandering, something the Supreme Court has blocked when it finds minority communities are effectively prevented from electing representatives of their choice.

“It’s almost like a redistricting civil war,” said NAACP President Derrick Johnson, whose organization is suing to block the Texas and Missouri plans.

‘Packing and cracking’

In redistricting lingo, it’s called “packing and cracking.” Those maneuvers are at the heart of Trump’s push for friendlier GOP districts as he tries to avoid reprising 2018, when midterms yielded a House Democratic majority that stymied his agenda and impeached him twice.

Because nonwhite voters lean Democratic and white voters tilt Republican, concentrating certain minorities into fewer districts — packing — can reduce the number of minority Democrats in a legislative body. By spreading geographically concentrated minority voters across many districts — cracking — it can diminish their power in choosing lawmakers.

The elder Cleaver, seeking an 11th term, said the Trump-driven plans foster an atmosphere of intimidation and division, and he and fellow Kansas City residents fear the city could lose federal investments in infrastructure, police and other services.

“We will be cut short,” said Meredith Shellner, a retired nurse who predicted losses in education and healthcare access. “I just think it’s not going to be good for anybody.”

Missouri’s U.S. House delegation has six white Republicans and two Black Democrats. The new map, which could still require voter approval if a referendum petition is successful, sets the GOP up for a 7-1 advantage.

Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe says the new map better represents Missouri’s conservative values. And sponsoring state Rep. Dirk Deaton says it divides fewer counties and municipalities than the current districts.

“This is a superior map,” the Republican legislator said.

Cleaver’s current 5th District is not majority Black but includes much of Kansas City’s Black population. New lines carve Black neighborhoods into multiple districts. The new 5th District reaches well beyond the city and would make it harder for the 80-year-old Cleaver or any other Democrat to win in 2026.

In Texas, Abbott insists no racism is involved

A new Texas map, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law, is designed to send five more Republicans to Washington, widening his party’s 25-13 advantage to a 30-8 one.

The old map had 22 districts where a majority of voters identified as white only. Seven were Latino-majority and nine were coalition districts, meaning no racial or ethnic group had a majority. By redistributing voters, the new map has 24 white-majority districts, eight Latino-majority districts, two Black-majority districts and four coalition districts.

Abbott insists new boundaries will produce more Latino representatives. But they’ll likely reduce the number of Black lawmakers by scrambling coalition districts that currently send Black Democrats to Washington.

Democratic Rep. Al Green was drawn out of his district and plans to move to seek another term. On the House floor, the Black lawmaker called GOP gerrymandering another chapter in a “sinful history” of Texas making it harder for nonwhites to vote or for their votes to matter.

Green said it would hollow out the Voting Rights Act of 1965 “if Texas prevails with these maps and can remove five people simply because a president says those five belong to me.”

The NAACP has asked a federal court to block the Texas plan. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act broadly prohibits districts and other election laws that limit minority representation.

The NAACP’s Johnson suggested Republicans are playing word games.

“Was this done for partisan reasons? Was it done for race? Or is partisanship the vehicle to cloak your racial animus and the outcomes that you’re pursuing?” he asked.

In Missouri, the NAACP has sued in state court under the rules controlling when the governor can call a special session. Essentially, it argues Kehoe faced no extenuating circumstance justifying a redistricting session, typically held once a decade after the federal census.

Saundra Powell, a 77-year-old retired teacher, framed the redistricting effort as backsliding.

She recalls as a first-grader not being able to attend the all-white school three blocks from her home. She changed schools only after the Supreme Court declared segregated schools unconstitutional in 1954.

“It seems worse 1758147903 than what it was,” Powell said.

Hollingsworth, Barrow and Ingram write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta. AP reporter John Hanna contributed from Topeka, Kan.

Shirley Whitney, 89, leading Republican volunteer in the San Fernando Valley who designed popular political buttons. Whitney was a Democrat for many years until the murder of Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles in 1968 changed her view of her party. A longtime member of the National Rifle Assn., she was sitting in a Democratic candidate’s headquarters watching the news report of Kennedy’s assassination when “everybody turned around and looked at me, as if I was to blame,” she recalled years later. Realizing that her conservative views didn’t belong in the Democratic Party, she re-registered as a Republican. She became known to major Republican candidates throughout the Valley for her skills at organizing candidate headquarters, heading Republican women’s clubs, supervising telephone campaigns and fund-raisers, and registering voters. She was best known for a sideline of developing political pins. Her most famous button depicted the head of former Gov. Jerry Brown on the body of an insect with the inscriptions “Fruit Fly of the Year,” followed by “Governor Moonbeam,” a design that delighted conservatives who seethed over Brown’s handling of the 1981 infestation of Mediterranean fruit flies in Northern California. She sold 15,000 of the pins for $1 each, enough to rent office space for Republicans in the Valley for part of 1982. Another Whitney button that circulated during 1984 showed two women holding a banner with the bright-red letters E, R and A, which stood for “Elect Reagan Again,” not Equal Rights Amendment. “I’m waiting for some ERA supporter to bop me on the head for that one,” she said at the time. On Thursday of Alzheimer’s disease and kidney failure at a Pomona nursing home.