map

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.

Six years ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld highly partisan state election maps in North Carolina and Maryland — ruling that federal courts cannot block states from drawing up maps that favor one party over the other — one of the court’s liberal justices issued a warning.

“If left unchecked, gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent.

Kagan argued that Republicans in North Carolina and Democrats in Maryland — the two examples before the court — had rigged elections in a way that “deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights,” “debased and dishonored our democracy” and turned “upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.”

“Ask yourself,” Kagan said as she recounted what had happened in each state: “Is this how American democracy is supposed to work?”

That’s the question Californians are now weighing as they decide how, or whether, to vote on Proposition 50, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to scrap congressional maps drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission and replace them with maps drawn by legislators to favor Democrats through 2030.

Democrats don’t deny that the measure is a deliberate attempt to dilute GOP voting power.

From the start, they’ve argued that the point of redistricting is to weaken Republicans’ voting power in California — a move they justify on the grounds that it is a temporary fix to offset similar partisan gerrymandering by Texas Republicans. This summer, President Trump upped the ante, pressing Texas to rejigger maps to shore up the GOP’s narrow House majority ahead of the 2026 election.

Experts say opponents of Proposition 50 have no viable federal legal challenge against the new maps on the basis that they disenfranchise a large chunk of California Republicans. Even since the 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision Rucho vs. Common Cause, complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court.

Already, Proposition 50 has survived challenges in state court and is unlikely to be successfully challenged if passed, said Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

“If you’re a Republican in California, or you’re a Democrat in Texas, you’re about to get a lot less representation in Congress,” Hasen said. “I don’t think there’s anything you can do about that.”

If Californians vote in favor of the measure on Tuesday, the number of Republicans in the state’s House — nine of 52 total members — would likely be reduced by five. That could mean Republicans have less than 10% of California’s congressional representation even though Trump won 38% of the 2024 vote.

“All of this is unconstitutional, but the federal courts aren’t available to help,” said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Law School.

“Every time you redraw a district specifically to protect some candidates and punish others,” Levitt said, “what you’re basically saying is it shouldn’t be up to the voters to weigh in on whether they think the candidates are doing a good job or not.”

Possible legal avenues

But even if the issue of partisan gerrymandering is blocked in federal courts, there are other potential legal avenues to challenge California’s new legislative maps.

One route would be to claim that Proposition 50 violates the California Constitution.

David A. Carrillo, executive director of the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law, said that if Proposition 50 passes, he expects a barrage of “see what sticks” lawsuits raising California constitutional claims. They stand little chance of success, he said.

“Voters created the redistricting commission,” he said. “What the voters created they can change or abolish.”

Attorneys might also bring racial discrimination claims in federal court alleging California lawmakers used partisan affiliation as a pretext for race in drawing the maps to disenfranchise one racial group or another, Carrillo said. Under current law, he said, such claims are very fact-dependent.

Attorneys are already poised to file complaints if the referendum passes.

Mark Meuser, a conservative attorney who filed a state complaint this summer seeking to block Proposition 50, said he is ready to file a federal lawsuit on the grounds that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“We’re saying that race was a predominant factor in drawing the lines,” Meuser said. “When race is a predominant factor in drawing the lines without a compelling interest, strict scrutiny will mandate the maps be stricken.”

Some legal experts believe that would be a tricky case to prove.

“It sure seems like the new map was oriented predominantly around politics, not race,” Levitt argued. “And though they’d be saying that race was a predominant factor in drawing the lines, that’s very, very, very different from proving it. That’s an uphill mountain to climb on these facts.”

Some experts think the new maps are unlikely to raise strong Voting Rights Act challenges.

Eric McGhee, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California who specializes in elections, said the new districts appeared to have been carefully carved to preserve Latino- or Black-majority districts.

A successful challenge is possible, McGhee said, noting there are always novel legal arguments. “It’s just the big ones that you would think about that are the most obvious and the most traditional are pretty closed,” he said.

Supreme Court looms large

Ultimately, legal experts agree the fate of California maps — and other maps in Texas and across the nation — would depend on the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on a redistricting case from Louisiana.

Last month, conservative Supreme Court justices suggested in a hearing that they were considering reining in a key part of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

“Whatever happens with Proposition 50 — pass or fail — almost doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things,” Carrillo said, noting that the Supreme Court could use the Louisiana case to strike Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. “There’s a big litigation storm coming in almost any scenario.”

Levitt agreed that the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, which could come any time between now and June, could change current law. But he stressed it is impossible to predict how broad the ruling could be.

“Whether that leaves any of California’s districts vulnerable — either in the current map or in the map if Prop. 50 passes — depends entirely on what Scotus says,” Levitt argued. “There are only nine people who know what they’ll actually say, and there are a lot of possibilities, some of which might affect California’s map pretty substantially, and some of which are unlikely to affect California’s map at all.”

Will Congress intervene?

As the redistricting battle spreads across the country and Democratic and Republican states look to follow Texas and California, Democrats could ultimately end up at a disadvantage. If the overall tilt favors Republicans, Democrats would have to win more than 50% of the vote to get a majority of seats.

Congress has the power to block partisan gerrymandering in congressional map drawing. But attempts so far to pass redistricting reform have been unsuccessful.

In 2022, the House passed the Freedom to Vote Act, which would have prohibited mid-decade redistricting and blocked partisan gerrymandering of congressional maps. But Republicans were able to block the bill in the Senate, even though it had majority support, due to that chamber’s filibuster rules.

Another option is a narrower bill proposed this summer by Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley, who represents parts of the Sacramento suburbs and Lake Tahoe and could lose his seat if Proposition 50 passes. Kiley’s bill, along with similar legislation introduced by California Democratic representatives, would ban mid-decade redistricting.

“That would be the cleanest way of addressing this particular scenario we’re in right now, because all of these new plans that have been drawn would become null and void,” McGhee said.

But in a heavily deadlocked Congress, Kiley’s bill has little prospect of moving.

“It may have to get worse before it gets better,” Hasen said.

If the redistricting war doesn’t get resolved, Hasen said, there will be a continued race to the bottom, particularly if the Supreme Court weakens or strikes down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Another scenario, Hasen argued, is Democrats regain control of Congress and the presidency, overcome the filibuster rule and pass redistricting reform.

If that doesn’t happen, Levitt said, the ultimate power rests with the people.

“If we want to tell our representatives that we’re sick of this, we can,” Levitt said. “There’s a lot that’s competing for voters’ attention. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have agency here.”

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.”

For most of President Trump’s second term, Republicans have bent to his will. But in two Midwestern states, Trump’s plan to maintain control of the U.S. House in next year’s election by having Republicans redraw congressional districts has hit a roadblock.

Despite weeks of campaigning by the White House, Republicans in Indiana and Kansas say their party doesn’t have enough votes to pass new, more GOP-friendly maps. It’s made the two states outliers in the rush to redistrict — places where Republican-majority legislatures are unwilling or unable to heed Trump’s call and help preserve the party’s control on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers in the two states still may be persuaded, and the White House push, which has included an Oval Office meeting for Indiana lawmakers and two trips to Indianapolis by Vice President JD Vance, is expected to continue. But for now, it’s a rare setback for the president and his efforts to maintain a compliant GOP-held Congress after the 2026 midterms.

Typically, states redraw the boundaries of their congressional districts every 10 years, based on census data. But because midterm elections typically tend to favor the party not in power — and the GOP holds a razor-thin majority in the House — Trump is pressuring Republicans to devise new maps that favor their candidates.

Democrats need to gain only three seats to flip House control, and the fight has become a bruising back-and-forth.

With new maps of their own, multiple Democratic states including California are moving to counter any gains made by Republicans. The latest, Virginia, is expected to take up the issue in a special session starting Monday.

Opposition to gerrymandering has long been a liberal cause, but Democratic states are now calling for redistricting in response to Trump’s latest effort, which they characterize as an unprecedented power grab.

Indiana

Indiana, whose U.S. House delegation has seven Republicans and two Democrats, was one of the first states on which the Trump administration focused its redistricting efforts this summer.

But a spokesperson for state Senate Leader Rodric Bray’s office said Thursday that the chamber lacks the votes to redraw Indiana’s congressional districts. With only 10 Democrats in the 50-member Senate, that means more than a dozen of the 40 Republicans oppose the idea.

Bray’s office did not respond to requests for an interview.

The holdouts may come from a few schools of thought. New political lines, if poorly executed, could make solidly Republican districts more competitive. Others say they believe it is simply wrong to stack the deck.

“We are being asked to create a new culture in which it would be normal for a political party to select new voters, not once a decade — but any time it fears the consequences of an approaching election,” state Sen. Spencer Deery, a Republican, said in a statement in August.

Deery’s office did not respond to a request for an interview and said the statement stands.

A common GOP argument in favor of new maps is that Democratic-run states such as Massachusetts have no Republican representatives, while Illinois has used redistricting for partisan advantage — a process known as gerrymandering.

“For decades, Democrat states have gerrymandered in the dark of the night,” Republican state Sen. Chris Garten said on social media. “We can no longer sit idly by as our country is stolen from us.”

Republican Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith, who would vote to break a tie in the state Senate if needed, recently called on lawmakers to forge ahead with redistricting and criticized the holdouts as not sufficiently conservative.

“For years, it has been said accurately that the Indiana Senate is where conservative ideas from the House go to die,” Beckwith said in a social media post.

Indiana is staunchly conservative, but its Republicans tend to foster a deliberate temperance. And the state voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

“Hoosiers, it’s very tough to to predict us, other than to say we’re very cautious,” former GOP state lawmaker Mike Murphy said. “We’re not into trends.”

The party divide reflects a certain independent streak held by voters in Indiana and Kansas and a willingness by some to break ranks.

Writing in the Washington Post last week, former Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, urged Indiana lawmakers to resist the push to gerrymander. “Someone has to lead in climbing out of the mudhole,” he said.

“Hoosiers, like most Americans, place a high value on fairness and react badly to its naked violation,” he wrote.

Kansas

In Kansas, Republican legislative leaders are trying to bypass the Democratic governor and force a special session for only the second time in the state’s 164-year history. Gov. Laura Kelly opposes mid-decade redistricting and has suggested it could be unconstitutional.

The Kansas Constitution allows GOP lawmakers to force a special session with a petition signed by two-thirds of both chambers — also the supermajorities needed to override Kelly’s expected veto of a new map. Republicans hold four more seats than the two-thirds majority in both the state Senate and House. In either, a defection of five Republicans would sink the effort.

Weeks after state Senate President Ty Masterson announced the push for a special session, GOP leaders were struggling to get the last few signatures needed.

Among the holdouts is Rep. Mark Schreiber, who represents a district southwest of Topeka. He told the Associated Press that he “did not sign a petition to call a special session, and I have no plans to sign one.” Schreiber said he believes redistricting should be used only to reflect shifts in population after the once-every-10-year census.

“Redistricting by either party in midcycle should not be done,” he said.

Republicans would probably target U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids, the Democrat representing the mostly Kansas City-area 3rd Congressional District, which includes Johnson County, the state’s most populous. The suburban county accounts for more than 85% of the vote and has trended to the left since 2016.

Kansas has a sizable number of moderate Republicans, and 29% of the state’s 2 million voters are registered as politically unaffiliated. Both groups are prominent in Johnson County.

Republican legislators previously tried to hurt Davids’ chances of reelection when redrawing the district, but she won in 2022 and 2024 by more than 10 percentage points.

“They tried it once and couldn’t get it done,” said Jack Shearer, an 82-year-old registered Republican from suburban Kansas City.

But a mid-decade redistricting has support among some Republicans in the county. State Sen. Doug Shane, whose district includes part of the county, said he believes his constituents would be amenable to splitting it.

“Splitting counties is not unprecedented and occurs in a number of congressional districts around the country,” he said in an email.

Volmert and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Volmert reported from Lansing, Mich., and Hanna from Topeka, Kan. AP writer Heather Hollingsworth in Lenexa, Kan., contributed to this report.

EXPLAINER

Satellite imagery shows Israel holds about 40 active military positions beyond the yellow line.

Satellite imagery analysis by Al Jazeera’s fact-checking agency Sanad shows that the Israeli army holds about 40 active military positions in the part of the Gaza Strip outside the yellow line, the invisible boundary established under the first phase of the ceasefire to which its troops had to move, according to the deal.

The images also show that Israel is upgrading several of these facilities, which help it maintain its occupation of 58 percent of Gaza even after the pullback by troops to the yellow line.

While the majority of sites are concentrated in southern Gaza, every governorate hosts at least one military position. Some sites are built on bases established during the war, while others are newly constructed. The total number of sites in each governorate is:

• North Gaza: 9
• Gaza City: 6
• Deir el-Balah: 1
• Khan Younis: 11
• Rafah: 13

One of the most prominent military points in Gaza City is located on top of al-Muntar Hill in the Shujayea neighbourhood of Gaza City. A comparison of images between September 21 and October 14 shows the base being paved and asphalted.

Where is the invisible yellow line?

Since the ceasefire took effect about two weeks ago, nearly 100 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks across the Strip, with some attacks occurring near the yellow line.

On October 18, Israeli forces killed 11 members of the Abu Shaaban family in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City, according to Gaza’s Civil Defence. Seven children and three women were among those killed when the Israeli military fired on the vehicle as the family attempted to return home to inspect it.

The Israeli military said soldiers had fired at a “suspicious vehicle” that had crossed the so-called yellow line. With no physical markers for the line, however, many Palestinians cannot determine the location of this invisible boundary. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has since said the army will install visual signs to indicate the line’s location.

In the first ceasefire phase, Israel retains control of more than half of the Gaza Strip, with areas beyond the yellow line still under its military presence. This has blocked residents of Beit Lahiya, Beit Hanoon, the neighbourhoods of Shujayea, Tuffah, Zeitoun, most of Khan Younis, and all of Rafah City from returning home.

What are the next phases of Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan?

According to the 20-point plan announced by United States President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on September 29 – developed without any Palestinian input – Israel is to withdraw its forces in three phases, as shown on an accompanying crude map, with each phase marked in a different colour:

• Initial withdrawal (yellow line): In the first phase, Israeli forces pulled back to the line designated in yellow on the map. Hamas has released all living Israeli captives that were in Gaza, and most of the dead bodies of captives who passed away in the enclave.
• Second withdrawal (red line): During the second phase, an International Stabilisation Force (ISF) will be mobilised to oversee security and support Palestinian policing, while Israeli forces are to retreat further to the line marked in red, reducing their direct presence in Gaza.
• Third withdrawal (security buffer zone): In the final phase, Israeli forces are to pull back to a designated “security buffer zone”, leaving a limited portion of Gaza under Israeli military control, while an international administrative body supervises governance and a transitional period.

Even after the third withdrawal phase, Palestinians will be confined to an area which is smaller than before the war, continuing a pattern of Israel’s control over Gaza and its people.

Many questions remain about how the plan will be implemented, the exact boundaries of Palestinian territory, the timing and scope of Israeli withdrawals, the role of the ISF, and the long-term implications for Palestinians across Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

The plan is also silent on whether Israel gets to continue its aerial and sea blockade of Gaza, which has been in place for the past 18 years.

RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina Republican legislative leaders completed their remapping of the state’s U.S. House districts on Wednesday, intent on picking up one more seat to help President Trump’s efforts to retain GOP control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections.

The new boundaries approved by the state House could thwart the reelection of Democratic U.S. Rep. Don Davis, who currently represents more than 20 northeastern counties. The state Senate already approved the plan in a party-line vote on Tuesday.

Republicans hold majorities in both General Assembly chambers, and Democratic Gov. Josh Stein is unable under state law to use his veto stamp on redistricting maps. So the GOP’s proposal can now be implemented unless likely litigation by Democrats or voting rights advocates stops it. Candidate filing for 2026 is scheduled to begin Dec. 1.

Republican lawmakers made the intent of their proposed changes crystal clear — it’s an attempt to satisfy Trump’s call for GOP-led states to secure more seats for the party nationwide, so that Congress can continue advancing his agenda. Democrats have responded with rival moves in blue states. A president’s party historically loses seats in midterm elections, and Democrats currently need just three more seats to flip House control.

“The new congressional map improves Republican political strength in eastern North Carolina and will bring in an additional Republican seat to North Carolina’s congressional delegation,” GOP Rep. Brenden Jones said during a debate that Republicans cut off after an hour.

Democratic state Rep. Gloristine Brown, an African American who represents an eastern North Carolina county, made an impassioned floor speech in opposition, saying “You are silencing Black voices and are going against the will of your constituents.”

“North Carolina is a testing ground for the new era of Jim Crow laws,” Brown said.

Republican-led Texas and Missouri already have revised their U.S. House districts to try to help Republicans win additional seats. Democratic-led California reciprocated by asking the state’s voters to approve a map revised to elect more Democrats, and Jones accused California Gov. Gavin Newsom of ramping up the redistricting fight.

“We will not let outsiders tell us how to govern, and we will never apologize for doing exactly what the people of this state has elected us to do,” Jones said.

North Carolina’s replacement map would exchange several counties in Davis’ current 1st District with another coastal district. Statewide election data suggests this would favor Republicans winning 11 of 14 House seats, up from the 10 they now hold, in a state where Trump got 51% of the popular vote in 2024.

Davis is one of North Carolina’s three Black representatives. Map critics suggested this latest GOP map could be challenged as an illegal racial gerrymander in a district that has included several majority Black counties, electing African Americans to the U.S. House continuously since 1992.

Davis is already vulnerable — he won his second term by less than 2 percentage points, and the 1st District was one of 13 nationwide where both Trump and a Democratic House member was elected last year, according to the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Davis on Tuesday called the proposed map “beyond the pale.”

Hundreds of Democratic and liberal activists swarmed the legislative complex this week, blasting GOP legislators for doing Trump’s bidding with what they called a power grab through a speedy and unfair redistricting process.

“If you pass this, your legacy will be shredding the Constitution, destroying democracy,” Karen Ziegler with the grassroots group Democracy Out Loud, told senators this week. She accused the state GOP of “letting Donald Trump decide who represents the people of North Carolina.”

Democrats said this map is a racial gerrymander that will dismantle decades of voting rights progress in North Carolina’s “Black Belt” region. Republicans counter that no racial data was used in forming the districts, and the redrawing was based on political parties, not race.

Based on last week’s arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in a Louisiana redistricting case, the Democrats may lose this line of attack. A majority of justices appears willing to neuter a key tool of the Voting Rights Act that has protected political boundaries created to help Black and Latino residents elect favored candidates, who have tended to be Democrats.

State GOP leaders say Trump won North Carolina all three times that he’s run for president — albeit narrowly last year — and thus merits more GOP support in Congress. Senate leader Phil Berger called it appropriate “under the law and in conjunction with basically listening to the will of the people.”

Robertson writes for the Associated Press.

EXPLAINER

In the first phase of the ceasefire plan, Israel will remain in control of nearly 60 percent of the Gaza Strip.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning in Gaza, United States President Donald Trump announced that Hamas and Israel had agreed on the first phase of his ceasefire and captive-exchange plan.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump stated : “ALL the hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their troops to an agreed upon line.”

The “agreed upon line” refers to a vague map shared by Trump on October 4, showing an initial Israeli withdrawal zone marked in yellow, later dubbed the “yellow line” by Trump officials.

After negotiations, Israel has agreed to the initial withdrawal line, which we have shown to, and shared with, Hamas. When Hamas confirms, the Ceasefire will be IMMEDIATELY effective, the Hostages and Prisoner Exchange will begin, and we will create the conditions for the next… pic.twitter.com/0VfaMSOqQ1

— Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) October 4, 2025

By Sunday or Monday, Hamas is expected to release about 20 living captives, along with the bodies of about 25 others, while Israel will free some 2,000 Palestinians detained in Israeli prisons. Final details have yet to be confirmed.

Where is the initial withdrawal ‘yellow line’?

Israel currently controls more than 80 percent of Gaza’s 365sq km (141sq miles) area, including areas under forced evacuation orders or designated by Israel as military zones.

Once the deal is signed, fighting would be expected to end immediately, and Israeli forces would withdraw to the line marked in yellow.

The final map has not yet been published following negotiations in Egypt, but based on the October 4 map, the area inside the yellow line represents approximately 155sq km (60sq miles), leaving about 210sq km (81sq miles), or 58 percent of Gaza, under Israeli control, as verified by Al Jazeera’s Sanad team.

Most notably, Israeli forces will remain in several previously populous Palestinian neighbourhoods, including:

• Beit Lahiya
• Beit Hanoon
• Parts of Gaza City’s Shujayea, Tuffah and Zeitoun
• More than half of the Khan Younis governorate
• Nearly all of the Rafah governorate

In addition, Israel will continue to control all crossings in and out of Gaza, including the Rafah crossing with Egypt.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been displaced multiple times throughout two years of war and are desperate to return to their homes, but the continued Israeli presence in these areas makes that unlikely in the near term.

What is supposed to happen next?

According to the 20-point plan announced by Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on September 29 – developed without any Palestinian input – Israel is to withdraw its forces in three phases, as shown on an accompanying crude map, with each phase marked in a different colour:

• Initial withdrawal (yellow line): In the first phase, Hamas is expected to release all remaining Israeli captives, both living and deceased, while Israeli forces pull back to the line designated in yellow on the map.
• Second withdrawal (red line): During the second phase, an International Stabilization Force (ISF) will be mobilised to oversee security and support Palestinian policing, while Israeli forces retreat further to the line marked in red, reducing their direct presence in Gaza.
• Third withdrawal (security buffer zone): In the final phase, Israeli forces are to pull back to a designated “security buffer zone”, leaving a limited portion of Gaza under Israeli military control, while an international administrative body supervises governance and a transitional period.

Even after the third withdrawal phase, Palestinians will be confined to an area which is smaller than before the war, continuing a pattern of Israel’s control over Gaza and its people.

Many questions remain about how the plan will be implemented, the exact boundaries of Palestinian territory, the timing and scope of Israeli withdrawals, the role of the International Stabilization Force, and the long-term implications for Palestinians across both Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

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.

Sept. 12 (UPI) — Republican Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe has the final say on a congressional redistricting map that would split an existing House district seat held by Democrat Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II.

The Missouri Senate voted 21-11 on Friday to approve the redistricting map that the state’s House of Representatives already approved, Roll Call reported.

Two GOP members of the Missouri Senate broke ranks and voted against the redistricting measure as several state legislatures scramble to revise their respective district maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Six of Missouri’s eight congressional districts are held by Republicans, which narrows the state GOP’s redistricting options.

The revised map would affect Cleaver’s district in the greater Kansas City area.

Missouri Senate and House members drafted the proposed redistricting legislation during a special session that was convened several weeks after Texas lawmakers approved a redistricting map there, according to NBC News.

California lawmakers likewise have revised the state’s congressional district maps to offset potential GOP gains of up to five seats from the Texas redistricting effort, which California voters would have to approve.

Virtually all of the respective states’ redistricting efforts are expected to face legal challenges.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri’s Republican-led House turned aside Democratic objections Tuesday and passed a plan backed by President Trump to redraw the state’s congressional districts so that Republicans could win almost all of them.

The rare mid-decade redistricting plan, which now heads to the state Senate, is aimed at bolstering Republicans’ national prospects in next year’s U.S. House elections. It comes after a similar move by Republican-led Texas and a counteroffensive in Democratic-led California, which still needs voter approval.

Other states, including Republican-led Indiana and Florida and Democratic-led Maryland and New York, could follow with their own revisions in what’s emerging as a national redistricting battle.

U.S. House districts were redrawn across the country after the 2020 census to account for population changes. The current redistricting push is being done for partisan advantage, a process known as gerrymandering.

“This is cheating,” said state Rep. Yolonda Fountain Henderson, one of many Democrats who denounced the measure. “It’s like when President Trump says, we jump.”

Trump wants to retain a congressional majority to advance his agenda. But historically, the party opposing the president has gained seats in the midterm elections, as Democrats did during Trump’s first term and then proceeded to impeach him.

Missouri lawmakers are meeting in a two-prong special session called by Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe.

The House on Tuesday also passed a measure that — if approved by the Senate and statewide voters — would make it harder to pass citizen-led initiatives amending the state constitution by requiring a majority vote from each congressional district instead of a simple statewide majority. That comes after Missouri’s initiative process has been used in recent years to win voter approval of amendments on abortion rights, marijuana legalization and Medicaid expansion.

Revised Missouri map could help Republicans gain a House seat

Missouri’s redistricting plan would give Republicans an improved chance to win seven of the state’s eight U.S. House seats, which is one more than they currently hold.

The plan targets a Kansas City district held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver by stretching it eastward into Republican-heavy rural areas and reducing the number of Black and minority voters in the district. Other parts of Kansas City would be added to two predominantly rural districts represented by Republicans.

Cleaver, who turns 81 in October, is a Methodist pastor who served as Kansas City’s first Black mayor from 1991-1999 and won election to the U.S. House in 2004. He asserted that Republicans are creating an atmosphere of “intimidation” and “division” and pledged to challenge the new map in court.

“It’s one of those moments that, frankly, I never thought I would experience,” Cleaver said in a recent interview with the Associated Press.

Although the primary Kansas City district would expand significantly, the state’s congressional districts overall would be more compact — and competitive — under the revised map, Republican lawmakers said. Kehoe has defended the revised map as a means of amplifying conservative voices in Congress.

It’s “a congressional map that will better represent Missouri in Washington, D.C.,” said sponsoring state Rep. Dirk Deaton, a Republican.

Some Republicans join Democrats in opposing new districts

The Missouri House passed the revised districts on a 90-65 vote. Thirteen Republicans, including House Speaker Jon Patterson of suburban Kansas City, joined Democrats in voting against the revised map. But only a couple spoke against it during two days of debate.

“Using our raw political power to tilt the playing field to our side, regardless of the party, is wrong,” Republican state Rep. Bryant Wolfin said.

Leading up to the House vote, three Democratic state lawmakers staged a sit-in in the House chamber for several days and nights to protest that the special session began while most members were absent. Former Vice President Kamala Harris ordered pizza and chicken wings delivered to them in a show of support.

Republicans are “bending a knee to Donald Trump and pushing through these racist, gerrymandered districts,” said Rep. Ray Reed of St. Louis, one of those who slept in the chamber.

The Missouri NAACP has sued seeking to invalidate the special session. The state lawsuit asserts that there is no extraordinary circumstance to justify the session and that the state constitution prohibits redistricting without new census data or a ruling invalidating the current districts.

Missouri Atty. Gen. Catherine Hanaway, who took office Monday, said she doesn’t think there is any constitutional prohibition on mid-decade redistricting.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Heather Hollingsworth in Kansas City, Mo., contributed to this report.

One London tube station sensationally disappeared from the Underground map, in the same year that it opened, only to make a comeback nearly 20 years later with a new name

The iconic London Underground map, with its vast network spanning across various zones and neighbourhoods, hasn’t always been the same.

For nearly two decades, one station was noticeably missing from its intricate design after it mysteriously disappeared.

Kensington (Olympia) is a peaceful rail and tube stop in West London’s Zone 2, currently served by the London Overground and the District line.

It provides a handy shortcut to avoid Zone 1, as all its Overground services are entirely within Zone 2.

However, if we travel back to 1940, Olympia had a completely different purpose.

Initially opened as Kensington station in 1844, it was so unpopular that it shut down in December of the same year.

READ MORE: Ryanair says 5,782 flights affected and tells passengers to ‘send email’READ MORE: Britain’s ‘greatest monarch’ gets train named after them – not Queen Elizabeth

The station returned in 1862 with new services, including the Metropolitan line, and was renamed Kensington Addison Road in 1868.

But during the Second World War, the Metropolitan line was bombed, leading to the closure of the West London stations on the line.

However, this wasn’t the end for Kensington station. As it happens, the station was ideally situated, reports MyLondon.

Not only did it have rail connections to all of London, but it was also conveniently close to the headquarters of the Commander of the Allied Forces, led by Dwight D Eisenhower.

It became his preferred travel spot when he journeyed to Wales in 1944 to prepare for the Normandy landings.

In 1946, the station was renamed Kensington (Olympia) and began transporting workers at the Post Office Savings Bank.

Due to the National Secrets Act, the Post Office Savings Bank kept the station’s existence under wraps, and it wasn’t until 1958 that its presence was officially announced.

That year, Kensington (Olympia) gained a permanent platform and a District line shuttle service to Earl’s Court.

After a significant makeover, the station introduced more regular schedules, added a community garden, and received a facelift.

Despite these improvements, trains remain infrequent at Kensington (Olympia), making it one of London’s only part-time stations.

READ MORE: All UK Home Bargains stores to shut for three days

Lawmakers in Missouri are the latest to try to draw a new U.S. House map for the 2026 election that could improve the Republican Party’s numbers in Congress.

It’s a trend that began in Texas, at the behest of President Trump, to try to keep GOP control of the House next year. California Democrats responded with their own map to help their party, though it still requires voter approval.

Redistricting typically occurs once a decade, immediately after a census. But in some states, there is no prohibition on a mid-cycle map makeover. The U.S. Supreme Court also has said there is no federal prohibition on political gerrymandering, in which districts are intentionally drawn to one party’s advantage.

Nationally, Democrats need to gain three seats next year to take control of the House. The party of the president typically loses seats in the midterm congressional elections.

Here is a rundown of what states are doing.

Missouri lawmakers hold a special session

A special session called by Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe began Wednesday and will run at least a week.

Missouri is represented in the U.S House by six Republicans and two Democrats.

A revised map proposed by Kehoe would give Republicans a better chance at winning the seat held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver by stretching the Kansas City-based district into rural Republican-leaning areas.

Although Democrats could filibuster in the Senate, Republicans could use procedural maneuvers to shut that down and pass the new map.

Texas Democrats walked out but Republicans prevailed

Democratic state House members left Texas for two weeks to scuttle a special session on redistricting by preventing a quorum needed to do business. But after that session ended, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott quickly called another one — and Democrats returned, satisfied that they had made their point and that California was proceeding with a counterplan.

Republicans hold 25 of the 38 congressional seats in Texas. A revised map passed Aug. 23 is intended to give Republicans a shot at picking up five additional seats in next year’s elections. Abbott’s signature made the map final.

California Democrats seek to counter Texas

Democrats already hold 43 of the 52 congressional seats in California. The Legislature passed a revised map passed Aug. 21 aimed at giving Democrats a chance to gain five additional seats in the 2026 elections.

Unlike Texas, California has an independent citizens’ commission that handles redistricting after the census, so any changes to the map need approval from voters. A referendum is scheduled for Nov. 4.

Indiana Republicans meet with Trump about redistricting

Indiana’s Republican legislative leaders met privately with Trump to discuss redistricting while in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 26. Some also met with Vice President JD Vance.

Several Indiana legislators came out in support of a mid-cycle map change following the meetings. But others have expressed hesitation. It remains unclear if Indiana lawmakers will hold a special session on redistricting.

Republicans hold a 7-2 edge over Democrats in Indiana’s congressional delegation.

Louisiana Republicans looking at times for a special session

Louisiana lawmakers are being told to keep their calendars open between Oct. 23 and Nov. 13. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Oct. 15 over a challenge to the state’s congressional map.

Republican state Rep. Gerald “Beau” Beaullieu, who chairs a House committee that oversees redistricting, said the idea is to have lawmakers available to come back to work in case the Supreme Court issues a ruling quickly.

Republicans now hold four of Louisiana’s six congressional seats.

Ohio must redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms

Because of the way its current districts were enacted, the state Constitution requires Republican-led Ohio to adopt new House maps before the 2026 elections. Ohio Democrats are bracing for Republicans to try to expand their 10-5 congressional majority.

Democrats don’t have much power to stop it. But “we will fight, we will organize, we will make noise at every step of the process,” Ohio Democratic Party Chair Kathleen Clyde said.

New York Democrats try to change state law

New York, similar to California, has an independent commission that redraws districts after every census.

State Democrats have introduced legislation to allow mid-decade redistricting, but the soonest new maps could be in place would be for the 2028 elections. That is because the proposal would require an amendment to the state Constitution, a change that would have to pass the Legislature twice and be approved by voters.

Maryland Democrats planning a response to Texas

Democratic state Sen. Clarence Lam has announced he is filing redistricting legislation for consideration during the 2026 session. Democratic House Majority Leader David Moon also said he would sponsor legislation triggering redistricting in Maryland if any state conducted mid-decade redistricting. Democrats control seven of Maryland’s eight congressional seats.

Florida’s governor pledges support for redistricting

Florida Republican state House Speaker Daniel Perez said his chamber will take up redistricting through a special committee. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has reiterated his support for the state to join the redistricting fray, calling on the federal government to conduct a new census count and claiming that the Trump administration should “award” the state another congressional seat.

Twenty of Florida’s 28 U.S. House seats are occupied by Republicans.

Kansas Republicans haven’t ruled out redistricting

Republican state Senate President Ty Masterson didn’t rule out trying to redraw the state’s four congressional districts, one of which is held by the state’s sole Democratic representative. The Legislature’s GOP supermajority could do so early next year.

A court orders Utah to redraw its districts

Utah Republicans hold all four of the state’s U.S. House seats under a map the GOP-led Legislature approved after the 2020 census. But a judge ruled Aug. 25 that the map was unlawful because the Legislature had circumvented an independent redistricting commission that was established by voters to ensure districts don’t deliberately favor one party.

The judge gave lawmakers until Sept. 24 to adopt a map, which could increase Democrats’ chances of winning a seat.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri lawmakers are meeting in a special session to redraw the state’s U.S. House districts as part of President Trump’s effort to bolster Republicans’ chances of retaining control of Congress in next year’s elections.

The special session called by Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe began Wednesday and will run at least a week.

Missouri is the third state to pursue the unusual task of mid-decade redistricting for partisan advantage. Republican-led Texas, prodded by Trump, was the first to take up redistricting with a new map aimed at helping Republicans pick up five more congressional seats.

But before Texas even completed its work, Democratic-led California already had fought back with its own redistricting plan designed to give Democrats a chance at winning five more seats. California’s plan still needs voter approval at a Nov. 4 election.

Other states could follow with their own redistricting efforts.

Nationally, Democrats need to gain three seats next year to take control of the House. Historically, the party of the president usually loses seats in the midterm congressional elections.

What is redistricting?

At the start of each decade, the Census Bureau collects population data that is used to allot the 435 U.S. House seats proportionally among states. States that grow relative to others may gain a House seat at the expense of states where populations stagnated or declined. Though some states may have their own restrictions, there is nothing nationally that prohibits states from redrawing districts in the middle of a decade.

In many states, congressional redistricting is done by state lawmakers, subject to approval by the governor. Some states have special commissions responsible for redistricting.

What is gerrymandering?

Partisan gerrymandering occurs when a political party in charge of the redistricting process draws voting district boundaries to its advantage.

One common method is for a majority party to draw a map that packs voters who support the opposing party into only a few districts, thus allowing the majority party to win a greater number of surrounding districts. Another common method is for the majority party to dilute the power of an opposing party’s voters by spreading them thinly among multiple districts.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. But it said state courts still can decide such cases under their own laws.

How could Missouri’s districts change?

Missouri currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Republicans and two Democrats. A revised map proposed by Kehoe would give Republicans a shot at winning seven seats in the 2026 elections.

It targets a Kansas City district, currently held by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, by stretching it eastward into Republican-leaning rural areas. Meanwhile, other parts of Cleaver’s district would be split off and folded into heavily Republican districts currently represented by GOP Reps. Mark Alford and Sam Graves. Districts also would be realigned in the St. Louis area but with comparatively minor changes to the district held by Democratic Rep. Wesley Bell.

Republican lawmakers had considered a potential 7-1 map when originally drawing districts after the 2020 census. But the GOP majority opted against it because of concerns it could face legal challenges and create more competitive districts that could backfire in a poor election year by allowing Democrats to win up to three seats.

Could other states join the redistricting battle?

Mid-decade redistricting must occur in Ohio, according to its constitution, because Republicans there adopted congressional maps without sufficient bipartisan support. That could create an opening for Republicans to try to expand their 10-5 seat majority over Democrats.

A court in Utah has ordered the Republican-controlled Legislature to draw new congressional districts after ruling that lawmakers circumvented an independent redistricting commission established by voters to ensure districts don’t deliberately favor one party. A new map could help Democrats, because Republicans currently hold all four of the state’s U.S. House seats.

Other Republican-led states, such as Indiana and Florida, are considering redistricting at Trump’s urging. Officials in Democratic-led states, such as Illinois, Maryland and New York, also have talked of trying to counter the Republican push with their own revised maps.

What else is at stake in Missouri?

A special session agenda set by Kehoe also includes proposed changes to Missouri’s ballot measure process.

One key change would make it harder for citizen-initiated ballot measures to succeed. If approved by voters, Missouri’s constitution would be amended so that all future ballot initiatives would need not only a majority of the statewide vote but also a majority of the votes in each congressional district in order to pass.

If such a standard had been in place last year, an abortion-rights amendment to the state constitution would have failed. That measure narrowly passed statewide on the strength of “yes” votes in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas but failed in rural congressional districts.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 30 (UPI) — Republican Missouri Gov. Mike Kehow ordered a special legislative session to redraw the congressional map for its eight U.S. House seats, mirroring efforts by other governors to gain seats for their parties in the 2026 midterms.

Redistricting may face a legal challenge because the state constitution requires new borders to be determined after new census numbers come out at the beginning of each decade, with the next scheduled for 2030.

On Friday, Kehow said the state General Assembly will return to the capital in Jefferson City on Wednesday to look at changing the maps. There are now six Republicans and two Democrats representing Missouri.

Both chambers hold super-majorities. The Missouri Senate will consider the map during its annual veto session on Sept. 10.

“Today, I am calling on the General Assembly to take action on congressional redistricting and initiative petition reform to ensure our districts and Constitution truly put Missouri values first,” Kehoe said in a statement.

Kehow unveiled the Missouri First Map, which he said is “a more compact, contiguous proposed map that was drawn and created by his team in Missouri to be considered by the General Assembly.”

The new map, he said, splits fewer counties and municipalities than the current map. It preserves two congressional districts as currently drawn, and retains every current member in their proposed districts.

“Missourians are more alike than we are different, and our Missouri values, across both sides of the aisle, are closer to each other than those of the extreme Left representation of New York, California and Illinois,” Kehoe said. “Missouri’s conservative, common-sense values should be truly represented at all levels of government, and the Missouri First Map delivers just that.”

President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on Friday that “passage of a new, much fairer, and much improved, Congressional Map, that will give the incredible people of Missouri the tremendous opportunity to elect an additional MAGA Republican in the2026 Midterm Elections – A HUGE VICTORY for our America First Agenda, not just in the ‘Show-Me State,’ but across our Nation.”

Trump, who noted he decisively won three primaries and three presidential elections, added “I call on all of my Republican friends in the Missouri Legislature to work as fast as they can to get this new Congressional Map, AS IS, to Governor Mike Kehoe’s desk, ASAP.”

In his Friday video, Kehoe said: “I appreciate President Donald Trump for raising the level of conversation on this matter, because his leadership on this nationally underscores just how important this moment is for Missouri.”

The proposed map significantly redraws the 5th congressional district, which is represented by U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat, who was first elected to the U.S. House in 2004. It includes a much larger portion of the state, meaning from the western portion of the state to the eastern edge.

The district currently covers Kansas City and its surrounding areas, as well as a portion of Independence. The district is home to Harry S. Truman, a Democrat who was U.S. president from 1945-1953.

“President Trump’s unprecedented directive to redraw our maps in the middle of the decade and without an updated census is not an act of democracy — it is an unconstitutional attack against it,” Cleaver, the first Black mayor of Kansas City, said in a statement. “This attempt to gerrymander Missouri will not simply change district lines, it will silence voices.”

He added Democrats wouldn’t “concede” if the map redrawing moves forward.

“The people of the Fifth District and I will fight relentlessly to ensure Missouri never becomes an antidemocratic state, where politicians choose their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives. In the courts and at the ballot box, we will demand that the rule of law is upheld, our voices are heard, and democracy prevails.”

He noted roughly 40% of Missourians cast their ballots for Democratic candidates last year but hold only 25% of the House seats.

The other House Democrat serving the state is Wesley Bell, elected for his first term in November, and serving in the 1st Congressional District covering St. Louis. He was the first Black prosecutor in St. Louis County.

The Missouri Constitution calls for the legislature to draw new congressional districts every 10 years after new U.S. census numbers are reported. Missouri officials weighed the map’s legality last week, according to emails obtained by the Kansas City Star.

“The plain language of the Missouri Constitution and the Missouri Supreme Court’s precedent make clear that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is prohibited,” attorneys Chuck Hatfield and Alix Cossette, two longtime Democratic attorneys, wrote in a memo obtained by the Missouri Independent. “Any attempt to do so will draw a substantial legal challenge, which will likely succeed and invalidate any map adopted by the General Assembly.”

Other states

In the U.S. House, Republicans currently hold a 219-212 advantage, which includes vacancies from the deaths of three Democrats and one GOP member who resigned.

On Friday, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed legislation for a new congressional map in an attempt to add five GOP seats in the U.S. House, which now includes 25 of 38 controlled by GOP.

In California, the new map could add five seats for Democrats, who hold a 43-9 edge. But unlike in Texas, voters in November must approve the change. California’s borders are drawn by a nonpartisan group and new legislation left it up to a referendum.

Republican-dominant legislatures in Ohio, Indiana and Florida may redraw congressional borders before the 2026 midterm elections.

Earlier this week, some Indiana legislators visited the White House to discuss redistricting.

States traditionally redo their borders at the start of each decade but in Ohio, under state law, a new congressional map must be approved by November 30. The previous map lacked bipartisan support.

Other states with a Democratic majority, including Illinois, New York, Maryland and Oregon, are also considering changing the borders.

Republican legislatures control 28 of the 50 states with 18 by Democrats and four chambers divided politically.

Aug. 29 (UPI) — Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday signed legislation for a new congressional map in the state in an attempt to add five GOP seats in the U.S. House for the 2026 midterm elections.

The border-changing in the Lone Star state has triggered efforts in other states to redraw their maps, including Democrat-dominant California, the largest state ahead of Texas.

Early Saturday, the Texas Senate sent the legislation to the governor for the new redistricting maps, three days after the state’s House passed the bill. For several days, the House couldn’t reach a quorum because Democrats fled the state, including to California and New York. Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton sought to arrest them.

“Today, I signed the One Big Beautiful Map into law,” Abbott said in a video on X. “This map ensures fairer representation in Congress. Texas will be more RED in Congress.”

Holding the document with his signature, he said: “Texas is now more read in the United States Congress.”

The state currently has 38 congressional districts, 25 of which are controlled by Republicans.

In the U.S. House, Republicans currently hold a 219-212 advantage with vacancies from the deaths of three Democrats and one GOP member who resigned.

Congressional maps are traditionally redrawn every decade after data is released from the U.S. Census, which is next scheduled to take place in 2030.

President Donald Trump had asked Abbott to redraw the borders, which required a 30-day special legislative session. When Trump was first president, Democrats took control of the House in 2018. This led to blocking some of his legislative policies and two impeachments.

“I promised we would get this done, and delivered on that promise,” Abbott said in the statement after the Senate approval, calling the legislation “a bill that ensures our maps reflect Texans’ voting preferences.”

He had vowed to call additional special sessions if the quorum still was elusive.

State Sen. Phil King, a Republican, said while the maps will create more competitive districts, he expects Republicans will win the seats.

He said with House Bill 4 that “I believe, should elect more Republicans to the U.S. Congress, but I’m here to tell you, there are no guarantees.”

The redistricted maps are facing a court test. A three-judge panel in a U.S. District court in El Paso set a preliminary injunction hearing for Oct. 1-10.

“This isn’t over — we’ll see these clowns in court,” Texas Democratic Party Chairman Kendall Scudder said. “We aren’t done fighting against these racially discriminatory maps, and fully expect the letter of the law to prevail over these sycophantic Republican politicians who think the rules don’t apply to them.”

Democrats say the new borders are racially discriminatory, including in metro areas of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin.

“Members, it breaks my heart to see how this illegal and rigged mid-decade redistricting scheme is dividing our state and our country,” Rep. Chris Turner, a Democrat, said. “This is Texas, it’s not Washington D.C. The impulses of outside politicians and their billionaire backers shouldn’t dictate what we do in this chamber, in this House.”

Rep. Todd Hunter, a Republican who wrote the bill, said four of the five new districts were “majority-minority Hispanic” but now trending Republican.

And in California, the new map could add five seats for Democrats, who hold a 43-9 edge. But unlike in Texas, voters in November must approve the change. California’s borders are drawn by a nonpartisan group and new legislation left it up to a referendum.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the so-called “Election Rigging Response Act” on Aug. 21.

“The People of California will be able to cast their vote for a Congressional map. Direct democracy that gives us a fighting chance to STOP Donald Trump’s election rigging,” Newsom said on X after the legislation was approved. “Time to fight fire with fire.”

Other states with a Democratic majority, including Illinois, New York, Maryland and Oregon, are considering changing the borders.

On the flip side, legislatures in Ohio, Indiana and Florida may redraw congressional borders before the 2026 midterm elections.

And late Friday, Missouri’s Gov. Mike Kehoe announced a special legislative session to draw a new voting map for his state will begin next Wednesday. Trump had been requesting the move in that state, too.

These states traditionally redo their borders at the start of each decade but in Ohio, under state law, a new congressional map must be approved by November 30. The previous map lacked bipartisan support.

On Tuesday, Utah Judge Dianna Gibson threw out the state’s congressional map, forcing Republicans to defend the current lines or draw a new one. Republicans overruled a ballot measure passed by voters to outlaw gerrymandering.

Republican legislatures control 28 of the 50 states with 18 by Democrats and four chambers divided politically.

Gov. Gavin Newsom spearheaded a bold overhaul of California’s congressional map, a move that could dramatically shift the state’s political landscape.

A Times analysis of recent election results found the redistricting effort, which will go to voters on Nov. 4 as Proposition 50, could turn 41 Democratic-leaning congressional districts into 47. Democrats currently hold 215 seats in the House, while Republicans control 220. If California voters approve the new map, the shift could be enough to threaten the GOP’s narrow majority.

Newsom’s plan was pushed by state and national Democratic leaders, following a move by Texas to approve its own maps that could give the GOP five more House seats. There’s also a push by the Republican-led states to redraw their lines before the 2026 midterm elections to help the Republicans remain in control. The governor’s plan was approved by the state Legislature last week and now goes to the voters in a November special election. This week California Republicans filed a lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to block the ballot measure.

To get a sense of how the proposed maps might alter the balance of power in Congress, The Times used results from the 2024 presidential election to calculate the margin of victory between Democrats and Republicans in the redrawn districts.

In some cases, districts were split apart and stitched together with more liberal areas. In one area, lines have been redrawn with no overlap at all with their current boundary. As a result, four formerly Republican-leaning swing districts would tilt slightly Democratic, while two others would shift more heavily toward the left. Four out of the five remaining Republican strongholds would become even darker red under the proposed map.

1st District: Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale)

In its current form, California’s 1st Congressional District sweeps south from the Oregon border almost to Sacramento. For the last 12 years, it has been represented by Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who won reelection last November with nearly two-thirds of the vote.

But under the proposed map, that district is split in two. The new 1st District would run inland from Santa Rosa through Chico to the Nevada border. The redrawn 2nd District would follow the north coast from Marin County and the border with Oregon. It would also include deep red Shasta County.

The Times analysis found the proposed 1st District experienced the largest Democratic shift, among all the districts that flipped from red to blue, moving from a 25-point advantage for Trump to a 12-point advantage for Harris. That gain was made possible in part by pulling in more Democratic-leaning areas from the 2nd District, making it slightly less blue.

3rd District: Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin)

Rep. Kevin Kiley has represented the 3rd District since 2022. But he would face an uphill battle to keep the seat on the redistricted map. The new lines lop off the conservative-leaning Eastern Sierra and instead pulls in Democratic voters from Sacramento.

In the 2024 presidential election, the current 3rd District backed Trump by 4 points. Under Newsom’s proposed map, that same area would have gone for Harris by 10 points, creating a 14-point swing that transforms the district from purple to solidly blue.

Kiley, whose district is targeted for elimination under Newsom’s plan, has called for a ban on all mid-decade congressional redistricting. The 3rd District’s boundaries are significantly reduced in the new map, and shifting demographics, including growth in the Asian American population, could further tilt the seat away from Republicans.

41st District: Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona)

Rep. Ken Calvert’s 41st District, long centered in the competitive western Inland Empire, would be eliminated and completely redrawn in Los Angeles County. The district would transform from a swinging GOP-leaning seat into one where Democrats would hold a 14-point advantage.

Parts of the new 41st would be carved out of the current 38th District, represented by Democrat Linda Sánchez. That change shifts some of Sánchez’s Democratic base into the new 41st district, making it more favorable to Democrats while leaving the 38th slightly less blue.

At the same time, the Hispanic share of the population would rise, further bolstering the Democrat‘s strength in the proposed district. The new 41st seat would become a majority-minority district. The redistricting proposal includes 16 majority-minority districts; the same number as the current map except for swapping the 41st District for the 42nd.

A section of the current 41st district would be added to Rep. Young Kim’s 40th District. The reshaped 40th District would move 9.7 points to the right — the biggest rightward shift among Republican-held districts.

48th District: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall)

The 48th District, a Republican stronghold represented by Darrell Issa, carried a 15-point GOP margin of victory under the current map. But the proposed lines would shift voters into San Diego County, giving Democrats a new edge. The district’s demographics would also change, with a larger share of Hispanic voters. As a result, what had been a safe Republican seat would become a swing district, where Democrats would hold a narrow 3-point advantage. The proposed 48th District includes Palm Springs, a liberal patch that was previously in the 41st District.

Deepening blue

Beyond flipping Republican-leaning swing districts, another aim of the redistricting plan is to shore up vulnerable Democratic seats. Democrats have long fought to hold onto these coastal Orange County seats, eking out narrow wins. Rep. Derek Tran of Cypress unseated a Republican incumbent by just about 650 votes, while Rep. Dave Min of Costa Mesa survived last November with a margin of less than 3 percentage points. Asians are the largest minority currently in Districts 45 and 47.

Under the current map, Harris carried the 45th District by only 1.5 points and the 47th by 4 points. But in Newsom’s proposed map, those advantages widen to 4 and 10 points, respectively, transforming fragile footholds into far safer Democratic turf.

The new changes dilute the number of GOP voters in both Rep. David Valadao’s District 22 and Rep. Adam Gray’s District 13.

— Additional development by data and graphics assistant editor Sean Greene.

Latinos unleashed a political earthquake after voting for Donald Trump, who has long painted the country’s largest minority as an existential threat, in unexpectedly large numbers in the fall.

This swing to MAGA helped Trump win, kicked Democrats into the political wilderness, launched a thousand thought pieces and showed politicians that they ignore Latinos at their own risk.

Now, Latinos once again hold the power to make or break American politics, thanks to redistricting fights shaping up in Texas and California. And once again, both Democratic and Republican leaders think they know what Latinos want.

In the Lone Star State, the GOP-dominated Legislature last week approved the redrawing of congressional districts at the behest of Trump, upending the traditional process, to help Republicans gain up to five seats in the 2026 midterms. Their California counterparts landed on the opposite side of the gerrymandering coin — their maps, which will go before voters in November, target Republican congressional members.

Texas Republicans and California Democrats are both banking on Latinos to be the swing votes that make their gambits successful. That’s understandable but dangerous. If ever a voting bloc fulfills the cliche that to assume something makes an ass out of you and me, it’s Latinos.

Despite President Reagan’s famous statement that Latinos were Republicans who didn’t know it yet, they rejected the GOP in California and beyond for a generation after the passage of Proposition 187 in 1994. When Hillary Clinton supporters whispered during the 2008 presidential race that Latinos would never vote for a Black candidate, they gladly joined the coalition that put Barack Obama in the White House. Trump increased his Latino support each time he ran — to the point that in 2024, a bigger proportion of Latinos voted for him than for any previous Republican presidential candidate — even though Democrats insisted that Latinos couldn’t possibly stomach a man that racist.

Many Latinos hate being taken for granted and don’t like the establishment telling them how to think. It’s classic rancho libertarianism, the term I created in the era of Trump to describe the political leanings of the people with whom I grew up: Mexican Americans from rural stock who simultaneously believed in community and individualism and hated the racist rhetoric of Republicans but didn’t care much for the woke words of Democrats, either.

Such political independence exasperates political leaders, yet it’s long been a thing with Latino voters across the U.S. but especially in Texas and California, where Mexican American voters make up an overwhelming majority of each state’s Latino electorate. As Republicans in the former and Democrats in the latter launch their initial redistricting volleys, they seem to be forgetting that, yet again.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), poses for a portrait in the Rayburn House Office Building in 2021.

(Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)

The GOP is hoping voters in South Texas, one of the most Latino areas of the U.S., will carry their Trump love to the 2026 congressional races. There, two of the three congressional seats are held by Democrats Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, despite a swing from most of the region’s 41 counties supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 to just five going for Kamala Harris eight years later.

In their new maps, Texas legislators poured more Republican voters into those South Texas districts. They also configured new districts in the Houston area and central Texas so that Latinos are now the majority, but voters favored Trump last year.

But a lawsuit filed hours after the Texas Senate moved the maps to Gov. Greg Abbott for his approval alleged that all the finagling had created “Potemkin majority-Latino districts.” The intent, according to the lawsuit, was to dilute Latino power by packing some voters into already Democratic-leaning districts while splitting up others among red-leaning districts.

The legislators especially threw San Antonio, a longtime Democratic stronghold that’s a cradle of Latino electoral power, into a political Cuisinart. Three Latino Democrats currently represent the Alamo City and its metro area: Cuellar, Joaquin Castro and Greg Casar. Under the new maps, only Castro is truly safe, while Casar is now in a district represented by Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, who has announced he will retire.

“We have three Hispanic-predominated districts in South Texas that we believe we can carve out for Republican leadership,” state GOP Rep. Mitch Little bragged on CNN this month. “It’s good for our party. It’s good for our state. And we need to ensure that Donald Trump’s agenda continues to be enacted.”

The thing is, fewer and fewer Latinos are supporting Trump’s agenda. In Reuters/Ipsos polls, his Latino support dropped from 36% in February to 31% this month. Only 27% of Latinos approved of his performance in a Pew Research Center poll released this month.

If this slide continues through next year and Latinos continue to reject MAGA, Texas Republicans would have done Trump’s gross gerrymandering and sparked a nationwide legislative civil war for nothing.

In California, Latino voters are also crucial to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s redistricting push — but Democrats are hoping they’ll be GOP spoilers, despite their recent tack to the right.

Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley’s district would swing into Sacramento, picking up many more Latino voters than he now has in the majority white Eastern Sierra.

Proposed districts for Democrats Josh Harder and Adam Gray in Central California and Derek Tran in Orange County, all of whom the party is trying to buttress after they squeaked through in close elections in the fall, also include areas with more Latinos. A new congressional district in southeast L.A. County would probably be filled by a Latino Democrat.

Powerful Latinos in the state have already come out in favor of Newsom’s so-called Election Rigging Response Act, and the governor is counting on them to convince Latino voters to approve the maps in November.

But all this shuffling is happening a year after those very voters jolted state Democrats. Although the party still holds a super-majority in Sacramento, Democratic legislators serve alongside the largest number of Latino GOP colleagues ever. The biggest swings to Trump happened in areas with larger Latino populations, according to a Public Policy Institute of California report published last month.

The president’s popularity is especially souring in California due to his deportation deluge — but whether Latinos will support redistricting is another matter.

Although 51% of Latinos support Newsom’s performance, only 43% said they would vote yes on his redistricting push — the lowest percentage of any ethnic group, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll conducted for the Los Angeles Times. The poll also found that 29% of Latinos are undecided on redistricting — the highest percentage of any group.

Such skepticism is the bitter fruit of a generation of Democratic rule in Sacramento, at a time when blue-collar Latinos are finding it harder to achieve the good life. Politicians blaming it all on Trump eventually created a Chicken Little situation that pushed those Latinos into MAGAlandia — and Newsom, by constantly casting redistricting as a necessary uppercut against Trump, is in danger of making the same mistake.

California Latinos have helped to torpedo liberal shibboleths at the ballot box more often than Democrats will ever admit. A Times exit poll found 45% of them voted to recall Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 while 53% voted yes on the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in 2008 even as a bigger majority voted for Obama. So egghead arguments about how redistricting will save the future of democracy won’t really land with the rancho libertarians I know. They want cheaper prices, and Trump isn’t delivering them — but neither is Newsom.

Latinos, as another cliche goes, aren’t a monolith. They could very well help Republicans win those extra congressional seats in Texas and do the same for Democrats in California.

But any politician betting that Latinos will automatically do what they’re expected to … remind me what happens when you assume something?

In an evening social media post about a supremely partisan battle that could reshape American political power for generations, President Trump sounded ebullient.

“Big WIN for the Great State of Texas!!! Everything Passed, on our way to FIVE more Congressional seats and saving your Rights, your Freedoms, and your Country, itself,” Trump wrote, of the nation’s most populous red state pushing a mid-decade redistricting plan designed to win more Republican seats in Congress and protect Trump’s power through the 2026 midterms.

“Texas never lets us down. Florida, Indiana, and others are looking to do the same thing,” Trump wrote — nodding to a potential proliferation of such efforts across the country.

The next day, Gov. Gavin Newsom — projecting a fresh swagger as Trump’s chief antagonist on the issue — stood with fellow lawmakers from the nation’s most populous blue state to announce their own legislative success in putting to voters a redrawn congressional map for California that strongly favors Democrats.

“We got here because the president of the United States is one of the most unpopular presidents in U.S. history,” Newsom said, couching the California effort as defensive rather than offensive. “We got here because he recognizes that he will lose the election, [and that] Congress will go back into the hands of the Democratic Party next November.”

In the last week, with lightning speed, the nation’s foremost political leaders have jettisoned any pretense of political fairness — any notion of voters being equal or elected representatives reflecting their constituencies — in favor of an all-out partisan war for power that has some politicians and many political observers concerned for the future of American democracy.

“America is headed towards true authoritarian rule if people do not stand up,” Texas state Rep. Gene Wu, a Democrat from the Houston area, said Friday on a call with reporters.

The race to redistrict began with Trump, whose approval ratings have plummeted, pressuring Texas to manipulate maps to secure more House seats for Republicans so he wouldn’t face a hostile House majority in the second half of his second term. It escalated when Newsom and other California leaders said they wouldn’t stand idly by and started working to put a new map of their own on the November ballot — formally asking voters to jettison the state’s independent redistricting commission to counter Trump’s gambit in Texas.

Those two states alone are home to some 70 million Americans, but the fight is hardly limited there. As Trump suggested, other states are also eyeing whether to redraw lines — raising the prospect of a country divided between blue and red power centers more than ever before, and the voice of millions of minority-party voters being all but erased in the halls of Congress.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom answers questions on Thursday after signing legislation calling for a special election on a redrawn congressional map.

(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Associated Press)

Of course, gerrymandering is not new, and already exists in many states across the country. But the bold, unapologetic and bipartisan bent of the latest redistricting race is something new and different, experts said. It is a clear product of Trump’s new America, where political warfare is increasingly untethered to — and unbound by — long-standing political norms, and where leaders of both political parties seem increasingly willing to toss aside pretense and politeness in order to pursue power.

Trump on the campaign trail promised a new “Golden Age,” and he has long said his goal is to return America to some purportedly greater, more aspirational and proud past. But he has also signaled, repeatedly and with hardly any ambiguity, an intention to manipulate the political system to further empower himself and his fellow Republicans — whether through redistricting, ending mail-in ballots, or other measures aimed at curtailing voter turnout.

“In four years, you don’t have to vote again,” Trump told a crowd of evangelical Christians a little over a year ago, in the thick of his presidential campaign. “We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.”

‘No democracy left’

The redistricting war has dominated political news for weeks now, given its potential implications for reshaping Congress and further emboldening Trump in his second term.

Sam Wang, president of the Electoral Innovation Lab at Princeton University, has studied gerrymandering for years, but said during the media call with Wu that he has never received more inquiries than in the last few weeks, when his inbox has filled with questions from media around the world.

Wang said gerrymandering reached a high point more than a decade ago, but had been subsiding due to court battles and state legislatures establishing independent commissions to draw district lines.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott defends his state’s redistricting move while calling California’s “a joke.”

(Eric Gay / Associated Press)

Now, however, the efforts of Texas and California are threatening that progress and pushing things “to a new low point,” he said — leaving some voters feeling disenfranchised and Wang worried about further erosion of voter protections under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which he said the conservative Supreme Court may be preparing to weaken.

Wu said allowing politicians to redraw congressional lines whenever they want in order to “make sure that they never lose” sets a dangerous precedent that will especially disenfranchise minority voters — because “politicians and leaders would no longer listen to the people.”

“There would be no democracy left,” he said.

That said, Wu drew a sharp distinction between Texas Republicans unilaterally redrawing maps to their and Trump’s advantage — in part by “hacking” apart minority populations — and California asking voters to counteract that power grab with a new map of their own.

“California is defending the nation,” he said. “Texas is doing something illegal.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday took the opposition position, saying Texas’ new map was constitutional while California’s was “a joke” and likely to be overturned. He also hinted at further efforts in other Republican-led states to add more House seats for the party.

“Republicans are not finished in the United States,” Abbott said.

Two legal experts on the call expressed grave concerns with such partisanship — especially in Texas.

Sara Rohani, assistant counsel with the Legal Defense Fund, or LDF, said her organization has been fighting for decades to ensure that the promises of the Voting Rights Act for Black and other minority groups aren’t infringed upon by unscrupulous and racist political leaders in search of power.

“Fair representation isn’t optional in this country. It’s the right of all Americans to [have] equal voting power,” she said.

That said, “voters of color have been excluded” from that promise consistently, both before and after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and “in 2025, it’s clear that our fight for fair maps continues,” Rohani said.

Major victories have been won in the courts in recent years in states such as Alabama and Louisiana, and those battles are only going to continue, she said. Asked specifically if her group is preparing to sue over Texas’ maps, Rohani demurred — but didn’t back down, saying LDF will get involved “in any jurisdiction where Black voters are being targeted.”

Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said there are definitely going to be challenges to Texas’ maps.

By their own admission, Saenz said, Texas lawmakers redrew their maps in 2021 in order to maximize Republican advantage in congressional races — with the only limits being those imposed by the Voting Rights Act. That means in order to gain even more seats now, “they have to violate the Voting Rights Act,” he said.

Texas Republicans have argued that they are acting in part in response to a warning from the Justice Department that their current maps, from 2021, are unlawful. But Saenz noted that the Justice Department dropped a lawsuit challenging those maps when Trump took office — meaning any threats to sue again are an empty ploy and “clearly orchestrated with one objective: Donald Trump’s objective.”

Is there a legal case?

The fate of any legal challenges to the redistricting efforts is unclear, in part because gerrymandering has become much harder to challenge in court.

In 2019, the Supreme Court threw out claims that highly partisan state election maps are unconstitutional. Chief Justice John G. Roberts said such district-by-district line drawing “presents political questions” and there are no reliable “legal standards” for deciding what is fair and just.

It was not a new view for Roberts.

In 2006, shortly after he joined the court, the justices rejected a challenge to a mid-decade redistricting engineered by Texas Republicans, but ordered the state — over Roberts’ dissent — to redraw one of its majority-Latino districts to transfer some of its voters to another Latino-leaning district.

Roberts expressed his frustration at the time, writing that it “is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”

Some legal experts say the new Texas redistricting could face a legal challenge if Black or Latino lawmakers are in danger of losing their seats. But the Supreme Court conservatives are skeptical of such claims — and have given signs they may shrink the scope of the Voting Rights Act.

In March, the justices considered a Louisiana case to decide if the state must create a second congressional district that would elect a Black candidate to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and if so, how it should be drawn.

But the court failed to issue a decision. Instead, on Aug. 1, the court said it would hear further arguments this fall on “whether the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority Congressional district” violates the Constitution.

Justice Clarence Thomas has long argued it is unconstitutional to draw election districts based on racial lines, regardless of the Voting Rights Act, and he may now have a majority that agrees with him.

If so, such a ruling could squelch discrimination claims from Black and Latino lawmakers in Texas or elsewhere — further clearing the path for partisan gerrymandering.

Looking ahead

Given the intensity of the battle and the uncertainty of the related legal challenges, few of America’s top political leaders are thinking to the future. They’re fighting in the present — focused on swaying public perception.

In a YouTube Live video with thousands of supporters on Thursday, Newsom said Trump “doesn’t believe in the rule of law — he believes in the rule of Don; period, full stop,” and that he hoped it was “dawning on more and more Americans what’s at stake.”

Newsom said that when Trump “made the phone call to rig the elections to Greg Abbott in Texas,” he expected Democrats to just roll over and take it. In response, he said, Democrats have to stop thinking about “whether or not we should play hardball,” and start focusing on “how we play hardball.”

On Friday, Newsom said he was “very proud of the Legislature for moving quickly” to counter Texas, and that he is confident voters will support the ballot measure to change the state’s maps despite polls showing a sluggish start to the campaign.

A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, conducted for The Times, found 48% of voters said they would cast ballots in favor of temporary gerrymandering efforts, though 20% were undecided.

Asked if he is encouraging Democratic leaders in other states to revisit their own maps, Newsom said he appreciated both Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signaling that they may be willing to do just that.

“I do believe that the actions of [the California] Legislature will inspire other legislative leaders to … meet this moment, to save this democracy and to stop this authoritarian and his continued actions to literally vandalize and gut our Constitution and our democratic principles,” Newsom said.

Notting Hill carnival takes over the West London streets again this weekend, but with major tube closures and road blocks in place – here’s everything you need to know before commuting

Notting Hill Carnival returns this weekend, bringing a burst of Caribbean culture to the streets of West London – and as always, millions are expected to turn up to enjoying the soca music and food.

But with road closures, station shutdowns and crowds packing out the area, it’s important to plan ahead. Whether you’re jumping on the tube, bus or walking in from nearby, here’s everything you need to know about the Notting Hill Carnival route and which transport options are still running.

There’s also a Notting Hill Carnival map available to help you visualise the road closures and walking routes – you can find this on the official carnival or TfL website.

READ MORE: Best curry house in England named – and it’s in a tiny market townREAD MORE: E.L.F. Cosmetics ‘overpriced beauty’ ad controversy explained as fans boycott viral brand

Tube

Ladbroke Grove – Closed all day.

Latimer Road – Closes at 11.30pm, but may shut temporarily to manage crowds.

Notting Hill Gate – No entry from 11am to 6pm. District and Circle lines won’t stop, and no interchange with Central line all day. Expect temporary closures throughout.

Westbourne Park – No entry from 11am. Expect serious crowding during peak times.

Holland Park – No entry from 11am to 3pm. Fully shuts at 3pm.

Royal Oak – No entry from 11am to 6pm. Fully shuts at 6pm.

Shepherd’s Bush – Expect it to be extremely busy from the afternoon onwards.

Kensal Green – A queueing system will be in place when heading home.

For more stories like this subscribe to our weekly newsletter, The Weekly Gulp, for a curated roundup of trending stories, poignant interviews, and viral lifestyle picks from The Mirror’s Audience U35 team delivered straight to your inbox.

Bus

Due to road closures, daytime and night buses will be diverted. Services will start from the Prince of Wales pub on Harrow Road (north) and Notting Hill Gate (south).

The following routes will be affected:

2, 7, 16, 18, 23, 27, 28, 31, 36, 46, 52, 70, 94, 98, 148, 205, 220, 228, 295, 316, 328, 332, 414, 452, N7, N16, N18, N27, N28, N31, N98, N205, N207.

Limited-stop services just for the weekend:

• 148X to Victoria – Runs between Shepherd’s Bush and Victoria (10am–5.30pm), then Notting Hill Gate to Victoria (until 10pm).

Stops: Shepherd’s Bush, Notting Hill Gate, Marble Arch, Victoria.

• 7X to Paddington – Runs between East Acton and Paddington (12pm–9.30pm).

Stops: East Acton to Wood Lane, then Shepherd’s Bush, Notting Hill Gate, Lancaster Gate, Paddington.

Beyond the travel time table, TfL has partnered with Metroline and local community group Phoenix Rising to unveil a specially-wrapped Carnival bus. The bus will feature in the parade, with Metroline staff, TfL employees and live steel pan performances onboard.

“For many years Notting Hill Carnival has represented London’s diverse culture and strong Caribbean links – a community which is an integral part of TfL’s history,” said Emma Strain, TfL’s Customer Director.

“That’s why we’re excited to partner with Phoenix Rising to showcase Caribbean-inspired steel pan music on one of our iconic buses,” she added, “Stations around the Carnival are likely to get extremely busy, so please plan journeys in advance using the free TfL Go app or our dedicated travel advice page.”

Help us improve our content by completing the survey below. We’d love to hear from you!

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Saturday promised to quickly sign off on a new, Republican-leaning congressional voting map gerrymandered to help the GOP maintain its slim majority in Congress.

“One Big Beautiful Map has passed the Senate and is on its way to my desk, where it will be swiftly signed into law,” Abbott said in a statement. The bill’s name is a nod to President Trump’s signature tax and spending bill, as Trump urged Abbott to redraw the congressional districts to favor Republicans.

Texas lawmakers approved the final plans just hours before, inflaming an already tense battle unfolding among states as governors from both parties pledge to redraw maps with the goal of giving their political candidates a leg up in the 2026 midterm elections.

In California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has approved a special election in November for voters to decide whether to adopt a redrawn congressional map designed to help Democrats win five more House seats next year.

Meanwhile, Trump has pushed other Republican-controlled states, including Indiana and Missouri, to also revise their maps to add more winnable GOP seats. Ohio Republicans were also already scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan.

In Texas, the map includes five new districts that would favor Republicans.

Democrats vow to challenge it in court

The effort by Trump and Texas’ Republican-majority Legislature prompted state Democrats to hold a two-week walkout and kicked off a wave of redistricting efforts across the country.

Democrats had prepared for a final show of resistance, with plans to push the Senate vote into the early morning hours in a last-ditch attempt to delay passage. Yet Republicans blocked those efforts by citing a rule violation.

“What we have seen in this redistricting process has been maneuvers and mechanisms to shut down people’s voices,” said state Sen. Carol Alvarado, leader of the Senate Democratic caucus, on social media after the new map was finalized by the GOP-controlled Senate.

Democrats had already delayed the bill’s passage during hours of debate, pressing Republican Sen. Phil King, the measure’s sponsor, on the proposal’s legality, with many alleging that the redrawn districts violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting voters’ influence based on race.

King rejected that accusation, saying, “I had two goals in mind: That all maps would be legal and would be better for Republican congressional candidates in Texas.

“There is extreme risk the Republican majority will be lost” in the U.S. House of Representatives if the map does not pass, King said.

Battle for the House waged via redistricting

On a national level, the partisan makeup of existing districts puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. The incumbent president’s party usually loses seats in the midterms.

The Texas redraw is already reshaping the 2026 race, with Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, the dean of the state’s congressional delegation, announcing Thursday that he will not seek reelection to his Austin-based seat if the new map takes effect. Under the proposed map, Doggett’s district would overlap with that of another Democratic incumbent, Rep. Greg Casar.

Redistricting typically occurs once a decade, immediately after a census. Though some states have their own limitations, there is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that the Constitution does not prohibit partisan gerrymandering to increase a party’s clout, only gerrymandering that’s explicitly done by race.

Other states

More Democratic-run states have commission systems like California’s or other redistricting limits than Republican ones do, leaving the GOP with a freer hand to swiftly redraw maps. New York, for example, cannot draw new maps until 2028, and even then only with voter approval.

Republicans and some Democrats championed a 2008 ballot measure that established California’s nonpartisan redistricting commission, along with a 2010 one that extended its role to drawing congressional maps.

Both sides have shown concern over what the redistricting war could lead to.

California Assemblyman James Gallagher, the Republican minority leader, said Trump was “wrong” to push for new Republican seats elsewhere. But he warned that Newsom’s approach, which the governor has said is an effort to “fight fire with fire,” is dangerous.

“You move forward fighting fire with fire, and what happens?” Gallagher asked. “You burn it all down.”

Vertuno, Cappelletti and Golden write for the Associated Press and reported from Austin, Washington and Seattle, respectively. AP writer Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.