map

Gov. Gavin Newsom stood alongside six Democrats from the Texas Legislature on Friday and joined them in accusing President Trump and Republicans of trying to “rig” elections to hold onto congressional seats next year.

“They play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away,” Newsom said of the nation’s history. “We are not going to allow that to happen.”

The Texas lawmakers and the governor spoke with reporters after meeting privately at the Governor’s Mansion in Sacramento to discuss a national political fight over electoral maps that could alter the outcome of the midterm elections and balance of power in Congress.

At the urging of President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state Legislature into a special session this week that includes a call to redistrict the Lone Star State to help Republicans pick up seats in Congress.

The move is part of a gerrymandering effort pushed by Trump to prevent the GOP from losing control of the House of Representatives next year. If Democrats take the House, they could derail the president’s agenda, which has so far included a crackdown on undocumented immigrants, tariffs on imports, rescinding efforts to combat climate change and undercutting state protections for the LGTBQ+ community, among other policy priorities.

Newsom has threatened to mirror Trump’s tactics and said he’s in talks with leaders of the California Legislature to redraw the state’s congressional districts to favor electing more Democrats and fewer Republicans.

Texas Democrats, who said they traveled to California to meet with the governor and explain the state of play in Texas, pledged do everything in their power to push back against Trump’s plan.

“We’re going to use every tool at our disposal in the state of Texas to confront this very illegal redistricting process that is going to be done on the backs of historic African American and Latino districts,” said Texas state Rep. Rafael Anchía.

Another group of Texas lawmakers are expected to meet with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker in Chicago.

Changing the maps to benefit Democrats is a massive departure from California’s work over the last decade to remove political partisanship from the redistricting process.

California voters in 2010 gave an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to determine the boundaries of voting districts for the U.S. House of Representatives instead of leaving that authority with the state Legislature.

To redistrict before the midterms, the most legally sound option is for state lawmakers to send a constitutional amendment to voters that seeks to allow changes to the voter map outside the boundaries of California’s independent redistricting process. The vote would need to happen in a special election before the June primary.

Newsom has said he’s also exploring a potential legal loophole that could allow the California Legislature to redraw the congressional maps themselves with a two-thirds vote.

The governor’s office said state law charges the redistricting commission with crafting new maps after a census, which is conducted about every 10 years. But they say the law is silent on everything that happens in between that time period.

Newsom’s lawyers believe it could be possible for the Legislature to redistrict congressional seats mid-decade on its own without going to the ballot.

The governor’s call to fight Trump using his own gerrymandering tactics has drawn a mixed response.

Newsom argues that Democrats will continue to lose if they remain the only party that plays by the rules. But others worry about the integrity of electoral outcomes across the nation if political parties in every state resort to naked political gamesmanship to gain control.

Texas Republicans have long been accused of crafting political maps to dilute the power of Black and Latino voters, which led to an ongoing lawsuit from 2021. Newsom’s effort in California would effectively seek to increase the share of Democrats in Republican-held districts.

Redistricting experts in California say redrawing the maps in the Golden State could create the potential for Democrats to flip at least five of the seats held by GOP incumbents.

Democrats may have the potential for greater gains from gerrymandering, particularly in places such as California that have attempted to practice nonpartisan redistricting, compared to states such as Texas, where maps are already drawn in favor of Republicans.

“It should be no surprise to anybody who covers Texas that every decade since 1970 Texas has been found to discriminate against people of color in its redistricting process,” Anchía said.

“In trying to do this, it is going to create great harm, not only to the people we represent, to the voters of the state of Texas, but also potentially to all Americans,” he said about Trump’s plan.

It’s common for the party in control of the White House to lose seats nationally in the first election after a presidential contest. Republicans hold majorities in the Senate and the House, and losing power to Democrats could be detrimental to Trump’s presidency.

Trump’s job approval rating dropped to a second-term low of 37% in a Gallup poll conducted earlier this month. The dip is just above his lowest approval rating ever of 34% at the end of his first term.

Trump has said publicly that he thinks it’s possible for Republicans to redistrict and pick up five seats in Texas, with the potential for gains in other states that redraw their maps.

The pound has strengthened against most currencies in the last year, giving families more spending power if they’re heading overseas. Make sure you’re heading to one that offers good deals

The world’s biggest rip-off destinations and those bucketlist spots perfect for a bargain break have been revealed.

When it comes to holidays, nothing sours the poolside mojito quicker than the feeling that your cash is disappearing too quickly.

Thankfully, the Post Office has looked into where in the world the British pound delivers the most value for money this year. We’ve put the biggest bargain cities and outrageous rip-offs resorts on an interactive map, so you can book armed with all of the facts.

If you’re looking for the most bang for your buck, then head to the Algarve.

The Portugese coastal resort is a huge favourite with Brits, who take advantage of cheap, regular flights from across the UK to flock to the southern region en-masse each summer.

It’s basket of holiday goodies cost £58.95, 1.6 per cent less than in 2024. This is due to the rock-bottom cost of meals and drinks. The average cost of a three-course meal for two with wine in Albufeira weighed in at £40.33 – the lowest recorded across the 47 destinations surveyed (figure 9) and one third the cost in New York (£128.27).

The Algarve is one of 19 resorts or cities that got cheaper this year than last, according to Post Office research. Others to do so include Delhi, India; Phuket, Thailand; Spain’s Costa del Sol and Prague in the Czech Republic.

If you’re keen to stay in Europe, then Prague is a good bet. Far more than just stag-dos and strip clubs, the former Soviet city is enriched by a huge amount of history, art, and music.

The Czech capital’s basket of holiday goods cost £75.92 this year, a significant price fall of over 20 per cent compared to 2024.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the biggest deals can be found a little further away from the UK, although bargain-hungry holidaymakers will have to factor in the cost of getting to these destinations when choosing where to go.

Cape Town in South Africa is the second cheapest destination looked at this year, with a basket of essentials costing £59.84. This is a great destination for Southern Hemisphere wine buffs as a glass of grape costs just £2.07; a fifth of the price it’ll set you back in New York.

Japan’s capital city, Tokyo, has been massively popular with Brits over the past year, thanks to the very favourable exchange rate.

A glass of wine and a bottle of beer can be purchased there for the equivalent of just over a fiver.

One destination to keep an eye on is Delhi. At £69.52, prices in the Indian city have dropped 10.7 per cent. Although alcohol prices there are a little on the steep side, soft drinks, water and food won’t lighten your wallet too much.

At the other end of the scale, New York is the most expensive of 47 destinations surveyed, with a barometer total of £167.85 – a rise of 15.6 per cent year-on-year. Not only will you have to spend upwards of £7 for a beer in the Big Apple, you’ll be expected to tip generously on top of that.

The eye-watering continues in Hawaii, the second most expensive destination on the list and the home of £9.18 insect repellent, and in Nice, France. Head to the French city, and you’ll find yourself being stingy with the suncream, as a bottle costs close to £17.

While the world has been in turmoil since Donald Trump returned to the White House (and perhaps was before), sterling remains strong against many other currencies.

Over three-quarters of Post Office’s top 30 currencies – including the euro and most other European currencies – have

weakened since last March. This could provide holidaymakers with a big incentive to choose destinations where sterling will provide more ‘bang for their buck.

Appetite for traveling remains high and is growing. Three-in-five (60 per cent) of Brits surveyed about their holiday plans for the coming year told Post Office Travel Money that they will be travelling abroad – up from 51 per cent who were asked the same question a year ago.

Almost three-quarters (73 per cent) of them will holiday in Europe and most (95 per cent) will be making a repeat journey to a European destination.

Although a big majority are planning to get away this year, most share a desire to keep things as cheap and cheerful as possible.

Travelling away from busy periods is regarded as the best way to make travelling abroad more affordable, with two-in-five holidaymakers prepared to swap peak season travel for cheaper times of the year.

More than a quarter of those questioned say they will book cheaper accommodation (27 per cent), take fewer holidays (27 per cent) or go to a destination that costs less (26 per cent).

Do you have a story to tell us? Email us at [email protected]

My husband and I spent much of the weekend driving from Los Angeles to Petaluma, and back, to attend a wedding. The trip began, as our car trips inevitably do, with my husband asking me to find the best route via Apple Maps and then arguing with every direction the app offered.

Out loud, as if the app’s “voice” could hear him.

As in “What? That makes no sense. Why take the 118 when we can just keep going and pick up the 5 in a few miles?” or “I knew we should have taken my shortcut back there. Look, now we’re just sitting in traffic. I thought these apps were supposed to help you avoid traffic.”

If, during these early explosions, I am sufficiently caffeinated, I calmly suggest that the traffic on alternate routes is probably much worse. If I am not, I simply snap that he was the one who asked to use Maps in the first place and if he doesn’t like it, he should just take whatever route he wants like he always does anyway.

We have been married for a very long time.

Long enough, in fact, for me to remember a time when the voice he would argue with was mine, as I bent over the Thomas Guide or some impossibly large map and we exchanged, in heated tones, our deep and personal feelings for one route or another. (He, for example, thinks the 405 is just another freeway while I know it is a shimmering sliver of Hell designed by Satan to suck the life out of unwary motorists.)

After 30 years of road travel together, I know that any trip of more than 10 miles will be filled with either exasperation over roadwork delays or complaints about how “they really need to fix this road” and that there is no point in arguing that local government simply does not have the organizational wherewithal, never mind the motivation, to “time the lights” in such a way to intentionally make his life more difficult. (But if L.A. city or county is looking for someone to fix their traffic lights, Richard is available.)

As we headed toward the wedding, I found myself hoping that the couple we would be celebrating had spent enough time in the car together. Any long-term personal relationship requires the acknowledgment and acceptance of certain things about your partner. In L.A. especially, that means being able to live with the way they drive, even when … no, especially when, this seems at odds with every other facet of their nature.

My husband is a rational man who believes in the laws of science. Until he enters a car and his notion of time and space become defined by movement — any “shortcut” that allows the car to remain in motion is better than sitting in traffic, even if it makes the trip much longer in minutes and miles.

He is also notably sweet and sympathetic, always willing to think the best of his fellow humans. Except from behind the windshield, where he views the world as teeming with schemers and brutes, acting on all manner of Machiavellian impulses. If Richard designed a driving app, it would be called “This Sonuvabitch.”

As in “this sonuvabitch knows I want to get over and keeps creeping up so I can’t.” Or “this sonuvabitch is mad because I passed him and now he’s riding my tail.”

Traffic in L.A. is quite literally maddening and I too am guilty of loudly questioning the sanity of that guy in the blue Honda who thinks he can make a left on La Cienega at rush hour or the woman who has stopped traffic in an effort to parallel park in a space that anyone with eyes can see is too small for her freaking Bronco. But I never take their choices personally.

Richard takes it all very personally, offering a steady stream of criticism and muttered instructions — ”that’s it, you can do it, just turn the wheel, it’s not difficult” — to any driver not performing up to his standards.

Neither conversation nor music provides much of a distraction — he will talk right over his beloved Aaron Copland, never mind me. Even the suggestion that he put his ability to conjure such vividly precise character defects and psychological motivations to better use in, say, fiction writing, has been to no avail.

He is, I hasten to add, a good and safe driver, aggressive only rhetorically. And so, as one must do in marriage, I have sought the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. As we made our expletive-fueled way up the 5, I silently soothed myself with the knowledge that in a couple of hours, we’d need to take a restroom break and then I would slide into the driver’s seat and stay there until we arrived. Since our rule is that the driver controls the audio, I had queued up “I, Claudius” read by Derek Jacobi on Audible.

I have also been married long enough to know that the one thing my former-theater critic husband won’t disrupt is a masterful performance.

Not so Maps, which, as we neared San José, began chiming in with a quite complicated alternate route, designed, I assumed, to avoid freeway traffic. Richard was not at all pleased by either the interruptions or the route, and it was frankly hilarious to listen to him vent about precisely the sort of shortcut he himself is known for.

Indeed, I found myself feeling a personal bond with the calm and implacable voice guiding our progress even as my spouse spluttered and argued. Not only was she a third-party recipient of road-trip frustration, the voice of Maps seemed to take on the kind of objective helpfulness of a good therapist.

She is simply not interested in the “you always,” “I never” emotional quagmires a gridlocked freeway or rerouting decision can churn up. When I missed a turn, she didn’t care at all when my husband asked if whoever programmed Maps had ever actually driven a car and if they were so smart, could they not see that truck that wouldn’t let us get over?

She just continued to suggest that we “proceed to the route.”

Being the proud participant in a decades-long relationship, which, despite its many compromises and workarounds, remains solid and loving, I, of course, had been wondering what sort of advice I might, if only in my imagination, offer the soon-to-be-newlywed couple.

And here was Maps doing it for me.

Marriage is like a road trip; no matter how much you love the other person in the car, if it lasts long enough, you will drive each other a little nuts. My husband’s explosive commentary sometimes amuses me and sometimes wears me down. But at this point, if he didn’t complain about the timing of the lights or “this sonuvabitch who doesn’t know you can make a right on red,” I would worry that he was having a stroke.

Among the glories of the journey and the intimacy of the conversation, there will always be missed turns, ill-fated routes and arguments over how to cope with the forces that surround you. But if you choose to stay in the car, then the only real option is to keep moving forward.

Or as Maps would say, proceed to the route.

Like the other Silicon Valley monopolies, Google habitually takes the side of Israeli occupation and war crimes in Palestine – the very term Palestine is not used by their highly influential maps app.

A new report by a Palestinian human rights group last month exposed the depths of Google’s dedication to the Israeli occupation.

With a known history documented back more than 3,200 years, the name “Palestine” is the only term continuously used for the entire territory of the country lying between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Palestine is the most historically accurate term. But since 1948, when Zionist militias expelled the majority of the Palestinian population from the country by force, a new state, “Israel”, was established.

That state has never declared its borders.

Consequentially, when speaking about “Israel” it is unclear exactly what territory is being referred to. But Zionists of both the right and the “left” commonly claim the entire historic territory of Palestine as the “Land of Israel.”

The new report, by 7amleh (Hamleh), a Palestinian organisation advocating online rights, details how Google seems to almost go out of its way to eradicate the reality of Palestinian life.

In 2016, Google came under fire from Palestinians on social media when the terms “West Bank” and “Gaza” disappeared from Google Maps. Google said that the removal of these terms was down to a glitch and that they had never used the word Palestine in the first place.

(The West Bank and Gaza Strip are regions of Palestine that are important, since they represent the remaining Palestinian territories which Israel failed to occupy in 1948. In 1967, however, Israel took over those too.)

“Through its mapping and labelling,” the 7amleh report explains, “one can deduce that Google Maps recognises the existence of Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital, but not Palestine.”

There are further aspects of the way Google has wiped Palestinian life off the map though. As the 7amleh report maps in some detail, Palestinian villages in the Naqab (Negev desert) deemed “unrecognised” by Israel (inside of what is sometimes termed “Israel proper” – the territories of Palestine occupied in 1948) are not properly mapped by Google.

These villages are only visible in Google Maps “when zooming in very closely,” the report explains, “but otherwise appear to be non-existent. This means that when looking at Google Maps, these villages appear to be not there.”

The report details how small Israeli villages are “displayed even when zoomed-out, while unrecognised Palestinian Bedouin villages, regardless of their size are only visible when zooming in very closely.”

Israel demolishes Al-Araqeeb for 135th time, arrests residents

This is despite the fact that there “are in total 46 Bedouin villages in the Naqab, the majority of which existed before Israel’s creation in 1948. Some claim to have existed since the 7th century.”

Israel has repeatedly attempted to physically remove these villages, but has repeatedly failed, thanks to the resistance of the Palestinians who live there, and thanks also to national and international solidarity shown to those villages.

Their Israeli (lack of) status as “unrecognised” also means that the state refuses to connect the villages to basic services like water and electricity – despite the fact that nearby Israeli-Jewish settlements are given all the support possible.

As Basma Abu-Qwaider, one Palestinian Naqab villager, explains in the report:

Google Maps acts in a discriminatory manner towards the unrecognised village the same [way] as the Israeli government does. Google ignores the existence of these villages just like Israel and for me if you do not exist on the map it means that you are invisible and that’s exactly what Israel wants us to be.

This solidarity with Israeli racism expressed by Google’s helpful attitude towards Israel’s wiping of Palestinians quite literally off the map extends across the 1967 “Green Line” ceasefire boundary.

Palestinian villages even within the “West Bank” area of the Jordan Valley are not properly mapped by Google either. The report documents that while Israeli settlements “can be seen when looking at the larger area of the map” some Palestinian villages are only visible when zoomed in – and even that only as a result of pressure being put on by a human rights organisation.

Google also refuses to recognise or map the reality of Israel’s apartheid roads system for Palestinians.

Khan Al-Ahmar resident: ‘We are imprisoned here’

As part of Israel’s ongoing settler-colonisation of Palestine, large parts of the West Bank – which is ruled by Israeli military decree – are prohibited access for Palestinians. Many roads are reserved for the use of Jews only.

Despite the illegality of these practices under international law, Google’s route-planning apps do not designate Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal.

7amleh’s report concludes: “Google Maps, as the largest global mapping and route planning service, has the power to influence global public opinion and therefore bears the responsibility to abide by international human rights standards and to offer a service that reflects the Palestinian reality.”

Google should be compelled to end its complicity with Israeli racism and apartheid.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.