Maps

In an era of escalating climate disasters, the ability to translate data into life-saving action has never been more critical. For the Asia-Pacific region—the world’s most disaster-prone, this is not an abstract challenge but a daily reality. At the forefront of this battle is the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), which is leveraging artificial intelligence to close the gap between risk knowledge and on-the-ground resilience. In this exclusive Q&A, Kareff May Rafisura, Economic Affairs Officer at the ICT and Disaster Risk Reduction Division of ESCAP, provides a clear-eyed look at their innovative tool, SatGPT, and how it’s changing the game for communities from the remote village to the ministerial office.

1. It’s one thing to see a flood risk map, and another to break ground on a new levee. Could you walk us through how a local official might use SatGPT to confidently decide where to actually build?

Kareff May Rafisura, Economic Affairs Officer at the ICT and Disaster Risk Reduction Division of ESCAP: First, it’s worth noting that there’s growing rethinking within the science and policy communities on the long-term benefits and trade-offs of constructing artificial levees.

Going back to your question, understanding an area’s flood history is key to making smart infrastructure decisions. You wouldn’t build a levee on natural floodplains, for example. Without risk knowledge, levees might not protect communities effectively and could even cause problems downstream or in ecologically sensitive areas. SatGPT offers a rapid mapping service that helps local officials make risk-informed decisions. It significantly reduces the time and cost traditionally required to assess flood characteristics, such as frequency, spatial extent, and impacts, and converts that data into actionable information. This information is critical for decisionmakers who must weigh it alongside economic, social, and environmental considerations when determining whether, and where, to build a levee.

2. We often hear about getting tech “to the last mile.” Picture a rural community leader with a simple smartphone. How does SatGPT’s insight practically reach and help them make a life-saving decision?

Kareff: SatGPT’s strength lies in enhancing historical risk knowledge. It’s not designed to predict the next disaster, but rather to help communities prepare more effectively for it. For instance, when a rural leader needs to decide whether to evacuate ahead of a flood, she will still rely on early warnings from national meteorological services. What SatGPT can do is support smarter ex-ante planning—so that when early warning information arrives, the community is ready to respond quickly. This includes decisions on where to build shelters, how to lay out evacuation routes, and where to preposition relief supplies. These are all critical elements that must be in place to help avert disasters, as consistently demonstrated in the cyclone response histories of India and Bangladesh.

3. Floods are an urgent threat, but what about slower crises like droughts? Is the vision for SatGPT to eventually help with these less visible, but equally devastating, disasters?

Kareff: ESCAP coordinates the long-standing Regional Drought Mechanism, which has been supporting drought-prone countries in gaining access to satellite data, products, tools, and technical expertise—everything they need to conduct drought monitoring and impact assessments more effectively. Our support goes beyond making data available—we work with countries and partners to strengthen institutions and capacities, converting these data into actionable analytics and insights. We are currently working with three Central Asian countries in establishing their own Earth observation-based agricultural drought monitoring systems.

4. AI is powerful, but it can sometimes reflect our own blind spots. How are you ensuring SatGPT doesn’t accidentally worsen inequality by overlooking the most vulnerable communities in its models?

Kareff: You raised a valid concern. That’s why in our capacity development work, our participants combine SatGPT’s flood mapping with socio-economic data to pinpoint who’s most at risk and where. They work on use cases that unpack the exposure of essential services like hospitals and water treatment facilities. When these critical infrastructures fail, it’s the poorest who pay the highest price. That’s why it’s vital to understand the hazards that threaten them.

5. Governments have tight budgets. If you were making the pitch to a Finance Minister, what’s the most compelling argument for investing in SatGPT now versus spending on recovery later?

Kareff: Investing in reducing disaster risk – which involves measures taken before disasters occur to reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience (e.g., early warning systems, resilient infrastructure, land-use planning) – is far more cost-effective than recovery. Every dollar invested in disaster risk reduction can save multiple dollars in future losses. While the benefits are context-specific, a recent multi-country study found that for every $1 invested, the return can be as high as $10.50.

6. The region is innovating fast, with countries like Indonesia and Thailand building their own systems. How does SatGPT aim to be a good teammate and connect with these national efforts, rather than just adding another tool to the pile?

Kareff: That’s a good point. And beyond technological innovation, we’re also seeing progress in policy and institutional innovations being put in place. Our intention is not to replace national systems, but to show what’s possible when you make risk knowledge accessible and actionable. We work closely with our national counterparts with a focus on integrating SatGPT insights into existing workflows and systems-not reinventing them.

7. Training young professionals is key. Beyond the technical skills, what’s the most important lesson you hope they take away about using this technology responsibly?

Kareff: I’m glad you recognize that today’s most pressing need goes beyond technical expertise. That’s precisely why our technical capacity-building activities are held alongside youth forums to provide a platform for young people to engage in meaningful conversations around values and motivations. As stakeholders, we all share the responsibility of upholding safe, secure, and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems to support sustainable development.

8. Looking ahead a year, what would a “win” for SatGPT look like on the ground? Is it a specific number of communities better protected, or a faster warning time?

Kareff: Forecasting and enhancing the forecast lead times remains the responsibility of mandated early warning agencies. SatGPT is well-positioned to support efforts to protect more communities. By enhancing the historical understanding of floods, it can help improve the accuracy of early warning information, help communities proactively plan their response, and reduce disaster risk ex-ante. In that sense, I would say that effective SatGPT roll-out would amount to both gains in space and time – more communities being warned with improved lead times for mitigative response with more reliable historical data for granular risk characterization.

9. The document mentions turning the Jakarta Declaration into action. From your vantage point, what’s the biggest spark of progress you’ve seen so far?

Kareff: One of the most promising sparks of progress has been the strengthened regional cooperation aimed at enhancing the capacity of countries—especially the countries in special situations—to overcome barriers to accessing the benefits of innovative geospatial applications. With the support of ESCAP members, we are implementing field projects, providing capacity-building and technical assistance, facilitating expert exchange, and knowledge sharing across more than a dozen countries. These efforts are helping to develop space-based solutions from the ground up to tackle sustainable development challenges such as urban poverty, air pollution, droughts, floods, and crop biodiversity loss.

10. Finally, behind all the data and code, you mention this is about protecting lives. Has working on SatGPT given you a new perspective on what “resilience” truly means for a family facing a flood?

Kareff: Having lived and worked for the United Nations in some of the world’s most flood-prone countries, I’ve witnessed first-hand how the lack of historical data can lead to underinvestment in risk reduction. Tools like SatGPT and other digital innovations are not silver bullets, but they help close this gap by converting geospatial data into actionable insights – quickly and more accessibly – to guide communities to prepare and protect lives and livelihoods.

The conversation with Kareff May Rafisura underscores a pivotal shift in disaster risk management: from reactive recovery to intelligent, data-driven preparedness. SatGPT represents more than a technological achievement; it is a practical instrument of empowerment, ensuring that from the finance minister to the rural community leader, the best available knowledge informs the decisions that save lives and safeguard futures. In the fragile balance between human vulnerability and environmental force, such tools are not just helpful, they are essential. The future of resilience in the Asia-Pacific is being written today, not in the aftermath of disaster, but in the proactive, thoughtful application of innovation like SatGPT.

Hurricane Melissa, which has been barrelling towards Jamaica, is expected to be the most powerful hurricane to ever make a direct hit on the island.

The hurricane intensified on Monday into a Category 5 storm, the most powerful on the Saffir-Simpson scale, with wind speeds exceeding 252km/h (157mph). It was expected to make landfall on Tuesday morning, according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC) in the United States. It said the storm will cause “destructive winds” and “catastrophic flooding”, which it forecast to worsen throughout the day and night.

Jamaica’s Meteorological Service added: “Life-threatening storm surge, accompanied by large and destructive waves, is likely along the south coast of Jamaica late Monday through Tuesday morning.”

How did Hurricane Melissa form?

Melissa originated as a cluster of thunderstorms off the coast of West Africa. It travelled west and evolved into a depression. On October 21, it reached tropical storm status.

Over the weekend, Melissa became a Category 4 storm as it made its way west through the Caribbean Sea.

Melissa is the 13th hurricane of the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to November 30. On average, the Atlantic basin experiences about seven hurricanes and three major hurricanes each year. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US predicted an above-normal Atlantic hurricane season this year with 13 to 18 named storms.

This is the third Category 5 hurricane of the season after Hurricanes Erin and Humberto.

Authorities use the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale to classify storms. The scale divides hurricanes into five categories based on their sustained wind speeds.

The highest is Category 5, which means a storm that has a sustained wind speed of 252km/h (157mph) or higher. Category 5 storms usually bring “catastrophic damage”, according to the NHC.

How has Melissa progressed? When and where will it hit Jamaica?

In anticipation of the hurricane, residents in Jamaica have been told to protect their homes with sandbags and boards, and to stock up on essentials.

The NHC said hurricane-force winds will extend up to 45km (30 miles) from Melissa’s centre and tropical storm-force winds will extend up to 315km (195 miles) from it.

Here is how the storm has progressed so far:

Monday, 7am in Jamaica (12:00 GMT)

On Monday morning, Melissa was upgraded to a Category 5 hurricane as it moved northwest in the Caribbean.

Tuesday, 1am (06:00 GMT)

Melissa will likely make landfall soon after this time. The NHC said because the storm is moving slowly – at 8km/h (5mph) – it will cause more damage.

“This extreme rainfall potential, owing to the slow motion, is going to create a catastrophic event here for Jamaica,” NHC Deputy Director Jamie Rhome said.

Melissa is expected to bring rainfall of 381mm to 762mm (15 to 30 inches) to portions of Jamaica and additional rainfall of 203mm to 406mm (8 to 16 inches) for southern Hispaniola through Wednesday with rainfall totals of 1,016mm (40 inches) possible. Catastrophic flash flooding and numerous landslides are likely.

Wednesday, 1pm (18:00 GMT)

Melissa is forecast to pass over Cuba by Wednesday before moving through the Greater Antilles and out into the Atlantic.

It is predicted to weaken to Category 3 by the time it reaches Cuba.

What is the latest on the ground?

Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness said: “I know that there are many Jamaicans who are anxious, who are very concerned, and rightfully so. You should be concerned.

“But the best way to address anxiety and any nervousness and concern is to be prepared.”

Jamaica’s Meteorological Service has advised small craft operators and fishermen on the cays and banks to remain in safe harbour until wind and sea conditions return to normal

“Leaving the island before the hurricane arrives is not an option,” it said. The main airports – Kingston and Montego Bay – are closed. Kingston’s airport is warning: “Passengers, contact your airline for rebooking. DO NOT go to the airport.”

Warnings have also been put in place for parts of Haiti, the Dominican Republic and eastern Cuba, where Melissa is expected to cause similar damage.

Jamaica’s history of hurricanes

According to the NHC, Jamaica has experienced only one Category 4 storm, Hurricane Gilbert in 1988. It was the most destructive storm in Jamaica’s history and killed at least 45 people.

In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy was the first to make landfall on the island since Gilbert. It hit as a Category 1 storm.

In 2024, Hurricane Beryl, a Category 5 storm, brushed the southern coast of Jamaica and caused heavy winds and rain and damaged buildings. It also caused the deaths of four people.

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.

The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize is scheduled to be announced on Friday, October 10, at 11:00 am local time in Oslo, Norway (09:00 GMT).

The announcement comes from the Norwegian Nobel Institute on behalf of the all-Norwegian, five-member Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament and responsible for selecting and presenting the laureates.

Nominations for this year’s award closed on January 31, and the selection process remains shrouded in secrecy.

A brief history of the Nobel Prize

The Nobel Prizes are named after Alfred Nobel (1833–1896), a Swedish chemist, engineer and industrialist best known for inventing dynamite, an explosive that transformed the modern world through advances in construction and mining, but which was also responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people in wars.

Motivated by a desire to shape his legacy, Nobel left a multimillion-dollar fortune to fund annual prizes, awarded to those who “have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind” in the preceding year.

The first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901 for outstanding achievement in the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and peace.

In 1968, Sweden’s central bank, Sveriges Riksbank, established the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, expanding the categories to six.

So far this year, four Nobel Prizes have been announced. After the Peace Prize on October 10, the final award for economics will be revealed on October 13.

Who can be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?

The Nobel Peace Prize is meant to recognise individuals and organisations that have made exceptional efforts to promote peace, resolve conflicts and advance human rights.

The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize has 338 nominees, including 244 individuals and 94 organisations, up from 286 candidates in 2024.

Nominations are kept confidential, and committee members are prohibited from discussing their decisions for 50 years. Only the nominators themselves may choose to disclose their submissions.

While a person cannot nominate themselves, they may be nominated multiple times by others.

This year, United States President Donald Trump has become a focus of Nobel Peace Prize nominations. Trump, who has said, “Everyone says I should get the Nobel Peace Prize,” has received several endorsements: Israel, Cambodia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan, even as many have questioned his credentials.

While many well-known figures have been nominated in the past but never received the Nobel Peace Prize, the names most frequently searched in the Nobel nomination database are Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi and Joseph Stalin.

These individuals represent vastly different legacies: Hitler was nominated in 1939 as a satirical gesture, Gandhi was nominated multiple times between 1937 and 1948 but never awarded, and Stalin was nominated in 1945 and 1948 for his role in ending World War II.

Who has received the Nobel Peace Prize?

As of 2024, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 105 times to 142 laureates – 111 individuals and 31 organisations.

Among the individual recipients, 92 are men and 19 are women.

The youngest laureate to date is Malala Yousafzai, who received the award at the age of 17 in 2014, while the oldest is Joseph Rotblat, honoured at 86 for his work against nuclear weapons.

The International Committee of the Red Cross holds the record for the most Peace Prizes, having been recognised three times, followed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has won twice.

Geographically, Europe accounts for the largest share of laureates at 45 percent, followed by North America (20 percent), Asia (16 percent), Africa (9 percent) and South America (3 percent).

In addition, United Nations organisations represent about 7 percent of all Nobel Peace Prize recipients.

When was the Peace Prize not awarded?

The Nobel Peace Prize has not been awarded every year.

It was skipped on 19 occasions, specifically in 1914–1916, 1918, 1923, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1939–1943, 1948, 1955–1956, 1966–1967, and 1972, usually due to war or the absence of a suitable candidate.

According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, if none of the candidates’ work is deemed significant enough, the prize may be withheld and the prize money carried forward to the next year. If it still cannot be awarded, the amount is transferred to the Foundation’s restricted funds.

One notable instance came in 1948, the year Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated. Gandhi had been nominated several times – in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947, and again in 1948 – for his nonviolent leadership of India’s freedom movement. In 1948, the Nobel Committee chose not to award the prize, citing “no suitable living candidate”, widely seen as an implicit tribute to him.

Has anyone refused the award?

The Nobel Peace Prize has only been refused on one occasion.

In 1973, Vietnamese politician Le Duc Tho and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were awarded the prize for their efforts to end the Vietnam War.

Tho declined the award, citing the ongoing conflict in Vietnam.

The Vietnam War lasted from the late 1950s to 1975, ending with the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, and killed millions of people.

Has the award ever been shared?

Yes, very often. Out of the 105 awards presented so far:

• 71 prizes were given to a single laureate,
• 31 prizes were shared between two laureates, and
• 3 prizes were shared among three laureates.

According to the Nobel Foundation’s statutes, a prize can be divided equally between two recipients or shared among up to three if their work is considered to merit the award jointly. The prize cannot be divided among more than three people.

Who are all the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?

The table below lists all Nobel Peace Prize laureates from 1901 to 2024, along with their country of origin.

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.

Californians were mailed inaccurate voter guides about the November special election asking them whether to redraw congressional district boundaries, according to the secretary of state’s office. The state agency announced that it would mail postcards correcting the information to voters, which is likely to cost millions of dollars.

“Accuracy in voter information is essential to maintaining public trust in California’s elections,” said Secretary of State Shirley Weber. “We are taking swift, transparent action to ensure voters receive correct information. This mislabeling does not affect proposed districts, ballots, or the election process; it is solely a labeling error. Every eligible Californian can have full confidence that their vote will be counted and their representation is secure.”

The voter guide was sent to California registered voters about Proposition 50, a ballot measure championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state Democrats to try to boost the number of Democrats in Congress. The proposal was in response to Texas and other GOP-led states trying to increase the number of Republicans in the House at the behest of President Trump to enable him to continue to enact his agenda during his final two years in office.

The special election will take place on Nov. 4, but voters will begin receiving mail ballots in early October.

On page 11 of the voter guide, a proposed and hotly contested congressional district that includes swaths of the San Fernando and Antelope valleys and is currently represented by Rep. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce) was mislabeled as Congressional District 22. However, on more detailed maps in the voter guide, the district is properly labeled as District 27.

“It is unfortunate that it was incorrect on the statewide map in the voter guide,” said Paul Mitchell, the Democratic redistricting expert who drew the new proposed congressional districts. “But the important thing is it is correct in the L.A. County and the Southern California maps,” allowing people who live in the region to accurately see their new proposed congressional district.

There are 23 million registered voters in California, but it’s unclear whether the postcards will be mailed to each registered voter or to households of registered voters. The secretary of state’s office did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday evening.

Even if the corrective notices are mailed to voter households rather than individual voters, the postage alone is likely to be millions of dollars, in addition to the cost of printing the postcards. The special election, which the Legislature called for in August, was already expected to cost taxpayers $284 million.

Opponents of Proposition 50 seized upon the error as proof that the measure was hastily placed on the ballot.

“When politicians force the Secretary of State to rush an election, mistakes are bound to happen,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for one of the campaigns opposing the effort. “It’s unfortunate that this one will cost taxpayers millions of dollars.”

Former state GOP Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson, who leads another anti-Proposition 50 campaign supported by congressional Republicans, added that such mistakes were inevitable given how quickly the ballot measure was written and the special election was called.

“The Prop. 50 power grab was rushed through so fast by greedy politicians that glaring mistakes were made, raising serious questions about what else was missed,” she said. “California taxpayers are already on the hook for a nearly $300 million special election, and now they’re paying to fix mistakes too. Californians deserve transparency, not backroom politics. Secretary Weber should release the cost of issuing this correction immediately.”

The campaign supporting the ballot measure did not respond to requests for comment.

In September 2005, Israeli forces pulled out of the Gaza Strip, with the last troops leaving through the al-Karara (Kisufim) and Beit Hanoon (Erez) crossings.

The withdrawal was seen at the time as a historic turning point, raising hopes that nearly four decades of military occupation had come to an end.

But instead of relinquishing control, Israel repositioned itself on Gaza’s edges. It sealed off the territory by land, sea, and air, restricting movement through fence crossings, imposing limits on fishing waters, and keeping watch from above.

In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera breaks down factors that led to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan, maps the 21 illegal settlements Israel dismantled across Gaza, and explores how their removal paved the way for deeper settlement expansion across the occupied West Bank.

What led up to disengagement?

The idea of the Gaza disengagement was primarily conceived and championed by Sharon.

A strong supporter of Israeli settlements, Sharon began considering a withdrawal from Gaza in the early 2000s, particularly after the outbreak of the second Intifada (2000-05).

The idea was motivated by the high cost of defending isolated settlements, the demographic challenges of ruling over a large Palestinian population, and the strategic goal of consolidating Israel’s hold on larger illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Despite facing intense opposition from within his Likud party and across the political spectrum, Sharon pushed forward the plan, framing it as a strategic move rather than a concession.

The proposal, formally known in Hebrew as the “Hitnatkut” (Disengagement), was announced in December 2003 and eventually approved by the Knesset in October 2004, paving the way for the dismantling of 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the northern West Bank in 2005.

Timeline of Gaza disengagement

• June 6, 2004 – The Israeli cabinet votes 14-7 in favour of PM Sharon’s disengagement plan, setting the stage for withdrawal from Gaza.
• February 16, 2005 – The Knesset passes the Disengagement Implementation Law, providing the legal framework for evacuations and compensation.
• August 15, 2005 – Israeli forces begin dismantling settlements and removing settlers from Gaza.
• August 22, 2005 – All 21 settlements in Gaza are emptied, removing about 8,000 settlers.
• August 23-24, 2005 – Attention shifts to the northern West Bank, where four settlements (al-Ghanim, Homesh, Kadim, Sanur) are dismantled.
• September 12, 2005 – Military jeeps and armoured bulldozers leave through the al-Karara and Beit Hanoon crossing points, ending 38 years of continuous Israeli military presence in the Strip.

Where were the 21 illegal settlements in Gaza?

Following the Six-Day War in 1967, when Israel occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula, it intensified settlement building.

Israeli settlements are Jewish-only communities built on Palestinian land. Settlements are illegal under international law because they involve transferring an occupying power’s civilian population into occupied territory, which violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The first settlement in Gaza after 1967 was Kfar Darom, set up as a combined military-agricultural outpost in 1970 and later converted into a civilian community. It became part of Gush Katif, the largest Israeli settlement in the Gaza Strip, located in southern Gaza, where most settlements were concentrated, particularly in the Khan Younis and Rafah governorates.

Other settlements included Netzarim, just south of Gaza City, and several sites in northern Gaza. These settlements were heavily protected by the Israeli military and surrounded by buffer zones that restricted Palestinian movement.

Over the next three decades, a total of 21 settlements were built, housing some 8,000 settlers.

Although settlers made up just 0.6 percent of Gaza’s population, they controlled roughly 20 percent of its land, affecting about 1.3 million Palestinians living in the territory at the time.

During Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza, it built several corridors named after the settlements they connected, including Netzarim and Morag, two of the territory’s largest and most prominent settlements.

Settlement expansion across the West Bank

Since Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza, settlement activity in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem has accelerated. Today, there are between 600,000 and 750,000 Israeli settlers living in at least 250 settlements and outposts.

Many of these settlements have expanded while new outposts were set up, often strategically located to control roads, high ground, and key resources, effectively blocking Palestinians from accessing their land and limiting their freedom of movement.

One of Israel’s latest settlement announcements came in August 2025, when Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich approved the construction of about 3,400 housing units in E1, between East Jerusalem and the illegal settlement of Maale Adumim.

E1 is strategically significant, as it forms one of the last geographic links between Bethlehem and Ramallah, and expansion there could undermine plans for a territorially contiguous Palestinian state.

Leaders from across the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have gathered in Doha for an Arab-Islamic summit to forge a unified stance on Israel following its attack on a Hamas office in Qatar’s capital on September 9 that killed six people.

The emergency summit of the Arab League and OIC began on Monday, following a closed-door meeting of foreign ministers in Doha, where a draft resolution outlining concrete measures against Israel was prepared.

“It’s time for the international community to abandon dual standards and to hold Israel accountable for all the crimes it has committed,” Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani said before the meeting, adding that the attack must be met with “fierce” and “firm” measures.

The Qatari leader also chided Israel’s continuous derailment of Gaza ceasefire talks, stating: “Israel must know that the continuous genocidal war against the Palestinian people, aiming at forcibly transferring them outside their homeland, cannot succeed, no matter what false justification is provided.”

Israel’s attack on Qatar was part of a broader wave of strikes extending beyond its borders, marking the sixth country Israel had targeted in 72 hours and the seventh since the start of this year.

Who are the 22 members of the Arab League?

Among the attendees are representatives from the Arab League, a group of 22 member nations stretching from North Africa to the Gulf and representing primarily Arab-majority states, with a combined population of nearly 500 million — about six percent of the world’s population.

Officially known as the League of Arab States, the Arab League was established in Cairo on March 22, 1945, by seven founding members: Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (now Jordan), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen. Its creation reflected the shared desire of Arab countries emerging from colonial rule to coordinate their political stances, promote regional solidarity and safeguard their sovereignty and independence.

Over the decades, membership grew to 22 states, stretching from North Africa to the Gulf. Egypt was suspended in 1979 after signing a peace treaty with Israel, but its membership was reinstated in 1989. Libya was suspended during the 2011 uprising but readmitted later that year. Syria was suspended in 2011 amid its civil war and reinstated in 2023.

The group accounts for about 3.25 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP), with several members ranked among the world’s leading oil producers.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, and Algeria are also part of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and hold some of the largest proven oil reserves. Collectively, Arab League members produce about a quarter of the world’s oil.

All Arab League members are also part of the 57-member OIC.

Who are the 57 members of the OIC?

The OIC, which was formed in 1969 in response to an arson attack on Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque, brings together 57 countries with significant Muslim populations across Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas.

In September 1969, Muslim leaders met in Rabat, Morocco, to establish a body that would safeguard Islamic holy sites, protect shared political and economic interests, and promote solidarity among Muslim-majority nations on the global stage.

Over time, its membership expanded from 30 to 57 states, reflecting its growing reach. Today, the OIC represents more than 2.1 billion people — about 26 percent of the world’s population and 8 percent of the world’s GDP.

In its early years, the OIC had loose membership rules. Its original charter allowed any Muslim state to join with the approval of two-thirds of existing members, which opened the door for countries without Muslim majorities but with significant Muslim populations. These include Gabon, the Maldives, Mauritania, Uganda, Mozambique, Cameroon, Togo, Benin, the Ivory Coast and Guinea-Bissau.

In the Americas, Guyana and Suriname joined despite having relatively small Muslim communities.

The 2008 charter revision made membership stricter. Now, a country must be a United Nations member (with Palestine as the exception), have a Muslim-majority population, abide by the charter and apply formally. Even then, admission requires consensus among all 57 members — a difficult task.

Albania is the only European state in the OIC.

The organisation has maintained a consistent and forceful stance against Israeli actions, particularly regarding occupation and military offensives in Palestine.

Over the past three years, the OIC has convened several emergency summits and ministerial meetings — most notably in Riyadh, Jeddah and Istanbul – to condemn Israeli attacks on Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and, more recently, strikes involving Iran and Qatar.

The group has repeatedly called for immediate ceasefires, protection of Palestinian civilians and international accountability for what it describes as “Israeli crimes”.

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.

Backed by a hefty list of prominent endorsers, Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis has officially kicked off her bid for a southeast L.A. County congressional seat, should new district maps be approved by California voters in November.

“I’ve been standing up for the people — and against Trump — as a Supervisor, and now it’s time to campaign for the House and fight for the people and democracy in the Congress,” Solis said in a statement Friday.

The former secretary of Labor, 67, previously served in Congress and the statehouse before becoming a county supervisor.

Solis’ campaign launch included endorsements from five sitting members of Congress, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and civil rights leader Dolores Huerta, among others.

The heavyweight list speaks to the legislator’s deep backing in local Democratic politics. It also doubles as a warning to other potential candidates about the establishment firepower behind Solis’ nascent campaign, despite the seat she’s angling for not actually existing yet.

Solis would run in the redrawn 38th District, which is currently represented by Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Whittier). Should the maps pass, Sánchez is likely planning to run in the redrawn 41st District, which will include her home of Whittier, leaving the new 38th District without an incumbent candidate. Both districts will be heavily Democratic.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s push to redraw California’s district maps to favor Democrats will be decided by voters in a Nov. 4 special election — a decision that could potentially determine the balance of power in the Congress in 2026. The plan punches back at President Trump’s drive for more GOP House seats in Texas and other states.

The Times reported this month that Solis was lining up support for a potential candidacy even before the new maps were finalized. At least one California lawmaker told The Times that Solis referred to the district as “my seat” when asking for backing — a reference to the seat she once held, even though the new district doesn’t yet exist. Solis confirmed her candidacy to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on Thursday.

Along with Sanchez, former Obama administration staffer TJ Adams-Falconer has also filed campaign fundraising paperwork in the district.

Aug. 27 (UPI) — The NAACP is suing Texas over its new congressional maps, calling them racially gerrymandered in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The nation’s largest civil rights organization filed the motion Tuesday seeking a preliminary injunction against the new maps in ongoing litigation in a 2021 case it filed against Texas over its previously drawn maps, which it said “intentionally diluted the votes of Black Texans and other Texans of color.”

“The State of Texas is only 40% White but White voters control over 73% of the state’s congressional seats,” Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP, said in a statement.

“It’s quite obvious that Texas’ effort to redistrict mid-decade, before next year’s midterm elections, is racially motivated. The state’s intent here is to reduce the members of Congress who represent Black communities, and that in, and of itself, is unconstitutional.”

The NAACP, along with civil rights groups and the Justice Department, under the previous Biden administration, sued Texas in December 2021, alleging Texas’ then newly drawn congressional maps to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.

Based on new census data, Texas had gained 4 million people, 95% of whom were people of color, gaining the state two new congressional House seats. The NAACP argues the new maps based on the new information were gerrymandered as the new seats, despite the demographic shift, were draw to favor Anglo-majority districts.

In March — amid litigation and after President Donald Trump won re-election and returned to the White House — the Justice Department dismissed its claims in the case, the trial for which ended on June 11.

Less than a month afterward, the Justice Department sent Texas a letter arguing that four Democrat-held congressional seats were racially gerrymandered, instructing Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, to redraw them.

Those redrawn maps are expected to give Republicans five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which were recently passed by both the Texas state House and Senate.

Democrats have been furious with this change, accusing the Trump administration of attempting a power grab to increase the Republicans’ odds of maintaining control of the congressional branch following next year’s midterm elections.

The NAACP, represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, argued in the Tuesday court document that Texas “overtly targeted districts where multiple minority groups together constituted a majority of the voters.”

“Dismantling Congressional districts because of their racial composition is intentional discrimination,” the civil rights group said in the motion.

The civil rights group is asking the court for a permanent injunction against the state from enforcing the alleged gerrymandered maps.

“We now see how far extremist leaders are willing to go to push African Americans back toward a time when we were denied full personhood and equal rights,” NAACP Texas President Gary Bledsoe said in a statement.

“We call on Texans of every background to recognize the dangers of this moment. Our democracy depends on ensuring that every person is counted fully, valued equally and represented fairly.”

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.

Aug. 23 (UPI) — The Texas State Senate has now passed a bill approving new congressional redistricting maps, aimed at giving Republicans more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“The One Big Beautiful Map has passed the Senate and is on its way to my desk, where it will be swiftly signed into law,” Gov Greg Abbott, R-Texas, said in a statement Saturday morning after Bill HB4 was passed in an overnight session.

Texas state House Republicans passed an identical bill Wednesday, despite continued vocal pushback from Democrats who call the move supported by President Donald Trump a power grab. Several times the House failed to reach a quorum because Democrats fled to other states.

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

The new maps are expected to give the state an extra five Republican seats in the U.S. House in time for the 2026 mid-term elections. The Republicans currently hold a 219-212 advantage with vacancies from the deaths of three Democrats and one GOP member who resigned.

Currently, Texas has 38 congressional districts, 25 of which are controlled by Republicans.

Lawmakers have said they will challenge the move in court.

Congressional maps are traditionally redrawn every decade in conjunction with a new U.S. Census, which is next scheduled to take place in 2030.

Democrats have fought to keep Texas from passing the legislation to bring in new maps. A contingent of state lawmakers left Texas in an attempt to block the bills from passing by making the governing bodies unable to reach quorum, drawing the ire of Abbott and Trump.

“This is not democracy, this is disgraceful,” Democratic State Sen. Sarah Eckhardt said on X after the bill was passed during the overnight legislative session.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is leading a push from Democrats to counteract the Texas move.

Newsom has said his state will respond by redrawing its own congressional maps that would create more seats in the House for Democrats.

“Republicans are determined to rig every rule they can, to break laws, in order to seize power. As Democrats, we have a responsibility to fight back and fight back hard, and that’s what I love about what California is doing,” Newsom said on X earlier in the week.

This week, the California state Assembly and Senate introduced three bills that would allow it to consider holding a special election needed to pass a constitutional amendment. That amendment would allow it to replace existing congregational maps through 2030.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — The California Supreme Court has rejected a Republican challenge to Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s plan to redraw the state’s congressional districts, a move the Democrat is pursuing as retaliation against Texas for approving maps that favor Republicans.

The court issued its refusal Wednesday, the same day Texas state Republicans passed maps that are expected to produce five additional GOP seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

According to a note on the decision in the docket, “Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief.”

The ruling was issued two days after four California state Republican lawmakers filed the lawsuit against Democratic lawmakers who had introduced legislation on Monday to initiate the state’s redistricting.

The litigation comes amid something of a congressional redistricting arms race that kicked off with Texas.

Congressional maps are generally redrawn once a decade based on new Census Bureau data, with the next census scheduled for 2030. Democrats are accusing Texas Republicans of redrawing their maps now under pressure from President Donald Trump to help ensure the GOP maintains its control of the House following next year’s midterm elections. Republicans currently hold a narrow majority in the congressional chamber.

Newsom has been among the most vocal critics, and has vowed to redistrict California to neutralize those seats to be gained in Texas. Other states on both sides of the political aisle have suggested they might do the same.

The lawsuit was filed by Republican state Sens. Tony Strickland and Suzette Martinez Valladares and Assemblymembers Tri Ta and Kathryn Sanchez, who have pledged to continue their fight despite the California Supreme Court decision.

“We will continue to challenge this unconstitutional power grab in the courts and at the ballot box,” they said in a statement. “Californians deserve fair, transparent elections, not secret backroom deals to protect politicians.”

COTTONWOOD — When the talk turned to politics at the OK Corral bar in this historic stagecoach town on Tuesday night, retired nurse Ovie Hays, 77, spoke for most of the room when she summed up her view of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s redistricting plan.

“I don’t want Democrats around,” she said. “They have gone too far in controlling us. We won’t have a say in anything.”

Nearby, a man in hard-worn cowboy boots agreed with Hays — using much more colorful language. He works as a ranch hand and said he’d just come from fixing a goat pen.

“The morons in charge, and the morons that put [those] morons in charge need to understand where their food comes from,” he said. He declined to see his name printed, like a lot of folks in this part of Shasta County and neighboring counties.

In its current form, California’s 1st Congressional District, which sweeps south from the Oregon border almost to Sacramento, is larger than Massachusetts or Maryland or eight other states.

This is farm and forest country. From the glittering peaks and dense forests of Mt. Shasta and the Sierra Nevada, rivers course down to the valley floor, to vast fields of rice, endless orchards of peaches and golden, rolling grassland full of more cows than people. Voters here are concerned with policies that affect their water supply and forests, given that the timber industry limps along here and fires have ravaged the area in recent years.

This is also Republican country. For the last 12 years, this district has been represented by Congressman Doug LaMalfa, a rice farmer from Oroville who is a staunch supporter of Donald Trump.

During a Chico town hall meeting, attendees hold up red cards to indicate their opinion on a statement made by Rep. Doug LaMalfa.

(Hector Amezcua/The Sacramento Bee)

But if voters approve the redistricting plan in November, the deep-red bastion that is LaMalfa’s district will be cleaved into three pieces, each of them diluted with enough Democratic votes that they could all turn blue. The northern half of the district would be joined to a coastal district that would stretch all the way down to the Golden Gate Bridge, while the southern half would be jigsawed into two districts that would draw in voters from the Bay Area and wine country.

Northern California finds itself in this situation because of power plays unleashed by President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Newsom and others. To ensure GOP control of the House of Representatives, Trump pressured Abbott to redraw Texas’ congressional maps so Republicans could take more seats. Newsom responded by threatening to redraw California’s maps to favor Democrats, while saying he’d holster this pistol if Texas did the same.

The California Legislature is expected to approve a plan Thursday that would put new maps on the November ballot, along with a a constitutional amendment that would override the state’s voter-approved, independent redistricting commission. If voters approve the new maps, they would go into effect only if another state performs mid-decade redistricting. Under the proposal, Democrats could pick up five seats currently held by Republicans, while also bolstering some vulnerable Democratic incumbents in purple districts.

Now, voters in Northern California and other parts of the state find themselves at the center of a showdown.

The Silver Dollar Saloon in Marysville, a part of Northern California where a number of voters say that urban California doesn’t understand the needs of rural California.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

And from Marysville to Redding this week, many — including those who call themselves Democrats — said they were outraged at what they saw as another example of urban California imposing its will on rural California, areas that city people generally ignore and don’t understand.

“Their needs and their wants are completely different than what we need here,” said Pamela Davis, 40, who was loading bags of chicken feed into the back of her SUV in Yuba City. Her children scrambled into their car seats, chatting happily about the cows and ducks they have at home on their farm.

Davis, who said she voted for LaMalfa, said voters in California’s cities have no understanding of water regulations or other policies vitally important to agriculture, even though what happens in farming areas is crucial to the state overall.

“We’re out here growing food for everybody,” she said. “Water is an issue all the time. That kind of stuff needs to be at the top of everybody’s mind.”

For years, folks in the so-called north state have chafed at life under the rule of California’s liberal politicians. This region is whiter, more rural, more conservative and poorer than the rest of the state. They have long bemoaned that their property rights, grazing rights and water rights are under siege. They complain that the state’s high taxes and cost of living are crushing people’s dreams. The grievances run so deep that in recent years many residents have embraced a decades-old idea of seceding from California and forming a “State of Jefferson.”

At the Riviera Mobile Estates community in Anderson, Calif., a “State of Jefferson” flag flies alongside the Stars and Stripes.

(Los Angeles Times)

Some residents, including LaMalfa, said if redistricting were to go through, it could further fuel those sentiments. And even some voters who said they abhorred Trump and LaMalfa and planned to vote in favor of the redistricting plan said they worried about the precedent of diluting the rural vote.

Gail Mandaville, 76, was sitting with her book group in Chico and said she was in favor of the plan. “I just am really, really afraid of the way the country is going,” the retired teacher said. “I admire Newsom for standing up and doing something.”

Across the table, Kim Heuckel, 58, said she agreed but also wondered whether a member of Congress from a more urban area could properly represent the needs of her district. “I’m sorry, but they don’t know the farmlands,” she said. “We need our farmers.”

We do, chimed in Rebecca Willi, 74, a retired hospice worker, but “all the things we stand for are going down the drain,” and if the redistricting in Texas goes forward, “we have to offset it because there is too much at stake.”

In an interview, LaMalfa predicted that California’s voters would reject the redistricting plan. “We’re not going anywhere without a fight,” he said.

But should it pass, he predicted that his constituents would suffer. “We don’t have Sausalito values in this district,” he said, adding that politicians in the newly redrawn districts would be “playing to Bay Area voters; they won’t be playing towards us at all.”

One of the biggest issues in his district recently, he noted, has been concern over wolves, who have been roaming ranch lands, killing cattle and enraging ranchers and other property owners. With redistricting, he said, “if it doesn’t go to the dogs, it will go to the wolves.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin and United States President Donald Trump will meet on Friday in Alaska to discuss ending Moscow’s three-year-long war in Ukraine.

The leaders are expected to discuss “land swapping”, suggesting that Trump may support an agreement where Russia will maintain control of some of the Ukrainian territory it currently occupies, but not all.

In a news conference at the White House on Tuesday, Trump said, “Russia’s occupied a big portion of Ukraine. They occupied prime territory. We’re going to try to get some of that territory back for Ukraine.”

But the idea of a swap also suggests that Ukraine might need to give up some land that it currently controls.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly said that any deal involving the ceding of Ukrainian land to Russia would be unsuccessful.

What does Putin want?

Last month, Trump warned that tougher sanctions would be put in place unless Russia halted fighting with Ukraine within 50 days. That deadline has now passed, and no new measures have hit Moscow, but the US has imposed 50 percent tariffs on India to punish it for its continued purchase of Russian oil.

Trump has demanded that Putin agree to a ceasefire on Friday to avoid the US imposing further tariffs on other countries buying Russian energy assets.

Putin has stated that he wants full control of Ukraine’s eastern regions, including Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson, parts of which Russia annexed in 2022, along with Crimea, which it annexed in 2014.

If Kyiv were to agree, it would mean withdrawing troops from parts of Luhansk and Donetsk, where much of the recent fighting has been concentrated.

Bloomberg reported on August 8 that US and Russian officials were working towards an agreement that would “freeze the war”, and allow Moscow to keep the territory it has taken.

In addition, Putin has consistently demanded that Ukraine remain a neutral state, abandoning its ambitions to join NATO.

Can Ukraine even cede territory?

Ukraine giving up land it has lost during this war and previously, in 2014, is not a welcome option.

On Saturday, Zelenskyy said that he would not “gift” land to Russia, and that Ukrainians would not give up their land to Russian occupiers.

More than this, ceding any territory would be illegal under the Ukrainian constitution.

How much of Ukraine does Russia control?

Russia occupies about one-fifth – 114,500 square km (44,600 square miles) – of Ukraine’s land.

The active front line stretches some 1,000km (620 miles) through the regions of Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson.

Russia controls about three-quarters of the Zaporizhia and Kherson regions.

Additionally, small parts of the Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv and Dnipropetrovsk regions of Ukraine are under Russian occupation. Across the Sumy and Kharkiv regions, Russia controls about 400 sq km (154 sq miles) of territory. In Dnipropetrovsk, Russia has taken a tiny area near the border.

Russia controls about 46,570 sq km (17,981 sq miles), or 88 percent, of the territory known as Donbas, made up of the Luhansk and Donbas regions. Russia occupies almost all of Luhansk and three-quarters of Donetsk.

Ukraine still holds about 6,600 sq km (2,550 sq miles) of Donbas, although Russia has been focusing most of its energy along the front in Donetsk, pushing towards the last remaining major cities not in its control.

This has been part of its efforts to secure what is known as the “fortress belt”.

What is the fortress belt?

The “fortress belt” stretches some 50km (31 miles) along a strategic highway between the towns of Kostiantynivka and Sloviansk.

The fortress belt includes key towns — Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, Oleksiyevo-Druzhkivka and Kostiantynivka – which have remained under the control of Ukrainian troops since 2014 and are of significant strategic importance as logistical and administrative centre.

Attempts by Russian troops to capture Sloviansk and the cities of the fortress belt in 2022-2023 were unsuccessful, and Ukrainian counteroffensives drove the Russian forces far from key positions.

“Ukraine’s fortress belt has served as a major obstacle to the Kremlin’s territorial ambitions in Ukraine over the last 11 years,” the Washington, DC-based think tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW) reported on August 8.

Russian advances: What’s the situation on the ground now?

In August, Russian forces made significant gains, advancing about 10km (6 miles) beyond the front lines as they intensified efforts to seize the fortress belt from the southwest, concentrating forces in the Toretsk and eastern Pokrovsk directions.

Al Jazeera military expert Alex Gatapoulous said, “I’m not sure what Ukraine has to offer in terms of territory. Russia has it all and is slowly winning this conflict, albeit at a great cost.

“There is already movement around Pokrovsk in the east, and Konstantinivka is also in danger of encirclement. If Ukraine hasn’t built defensive positions in-depth, Russian forces will have the ability to break out into open country. This is a really dangerous time for Ukraine. They’ve lost all the Russian territory they had taken in Kursk and have little to trade with.”

How has the war progressed over the past three years?

In the war’s early weeks, Russia advanced from the north, east and south, rapidly seizing vast areas of Ukrainian territory, with fierce battles in Irpin, Bucha and Mariupol – the latter of which fell to Russian forces in May 2022. The siege of Mariupol was one of the deadliest and most destructive battles of the war. Ukrainian officials estimated tens of thousands of civilian deaths.

By March 2022, Russian forces seized the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the largest in Europe, and by April of that year, Russia controlled 27 percent of Ukraine.

By late 2022, Ukraine had turned the tide with major counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson, with Kyiv reclaiming 54 percent of the land Russia had captured since the beginning of the war, according to ISW data, reducing Russian-occupied land to just 18 percent of the country.

In August 2024, Ukraine launched a significant incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, marking a notable escalation in the conflict. This offensive saw Ukrainian forces advancing approximately 10km (6 miles) into Russian territory, seizing control over an estimated 250 sq km (96.5 sq miles), all of which has since been retaken by Russia.

By late 2024 and into 2025, the war had settled into a grinding impasse, with both sides suffering heavy losses. However, Russia’s recent incursions, pushing towards Sloviansk, allude to the potential for another offensive to take land it has historically struggled to capture.

What was the pre-war situation?

Prior to Russia’s full-scale 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia had held Crimea, which it annexed from Ukraine in 2014.

Moscow also supported separatists in the Donbas region, leading to the creation of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Russia officially recognised these entities on February 21, 2022, and launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine three days later.

The war in Ukraine has resulted in one of the largest and fastest-growing displacement crises in Europe since World War II. According to the UN, approximately 10 million Ukrainians have been displaced, which is about 21 percent of the country’s pre-war population.

Of these, 3.7 million remain internally displaced within Ukraine, while 6.9 million have fled abroad as refugees.

Long Moh, Sarawak — William Tinggang throws a handful of fish food into a glass-clear river.

A few seconds pass before movement under the water’s surface begins, and soon a large shoal splashes to the surface, fighting for the food.

He waits for the underwater crowd to disperse before hurling the next handful into the river. The splashing resumes.

“These fish aren’t for us to eat,” explains Tinggang, who has emerged as a community leader in opposing the logging industry in Long Moh, a village in the Ulu Baram region of Malaysia’s Sarawak state.

“We want the populations here to replenish,” he tells Al Jazeera.

As part of a system known as Tagang – an Iban language word that translates as “restricted” – residents of Long Moh have agreed there will be no hunting, fishing or cutting of trees in this area.

Just a few hours’ flight from Malaysia’s capital Kuala Lumpur, Sarawak is one of two Malaysian states on the island of Borneo that contain some of the oldest rainforests on the planet.

It is an internationally recognised biodiversity hotspot, and within its Ulu Baram region lies the Nawan Nature Discovery Centre, a community-initiated forest reserve spanning more than 6,000 hectares (23 square miles).

The forest in Nawan is dense and thriving; bats skim the surface of the Baram River, palm-sized butterflies drift between trees, and occasionally, monkeys can be heard from the canopy.

The river remains crystal clear, a testament to the absence of nearby activities.

The community’s preservation effort stands in contrast to much of the surrounding landscape in Sarawak, where vast tracts of forest have been systematically cut down for timber extraction and palm oil plantations.

Conservation groups estimate that Sarawak may have lost 90 percent of its primary forest cover in the past 50 years.

Limiting hunting is one of the numerous ways communities in the region are working together to protect what remains of Sarawak’s biodiversity heritage.

For the community of Long Moh, whose residents are Kenyah Indigenous people, the forests within their native customary lands have spiritual significance.

“Nawan is like a spiritual home,” says Robert Lenjau, a resident of Long Moh, who is a keen player of the sape, a traditional lute instrument which is popular across the state and is steeped in Indigenous mythology.

“We believe there are ancestors there,” says Lenjau.

While most Kenyah people have converted to Christianity following decades of missionary influence in the region, many still retain elements of their traditional beliefs.

The community’s leading activist, Tinggang, believes the forest to have spiritual importance.

“We hear sounds of machetes clashing, and sounds of people in pain when we sleep by the river’s mouth,” he explains.

“Our parents once told us that there was a burial ground there.”

Sarawak’s dwindling forest cover

Sarawak’s logging industry boomed in the 1980s, and the following decades saw large concessions granted to companies.

Timber exports remain big business. In 2023, exports were estimated to be worth $560m, with top importers of Sarawak’s wood including France, the Netherlands, Japan and the United States, according to Human Rights Watch.

In recent years, the timber industry has turned to meeting the rapidly growing demand for wood pellets, which are burned to generate energy.

While logging reaped billions in profits, it often came at the expense of Indigenous communities, who lacked formal legal recognition of their ancestral lands, despite their historical connection to the forest and their deep ecological knowledge of the region.

“In Sarawak, there are very limited options for communities to actually claim native customary land rights,” says Jessica Merriman from The Borneo Project, an organisation that campaigns for environmental protection and human rights across Malaysian Borneo.

“Even communities who do decide to try the legal route, which takes years, lawyers, and costs money, they risk losing access to the rest of their customary territories,” Merriman says, explaining that making a legal claim to one tract of land may mean losing much more.

“Because you’ve agreed – essentially – that the rest [of the land] doesn’t belong to you,” she says.

Even successful community claims may only grant rights to a very small fraction of what Indigenous communities actually consider to be their native customary land in Sarawak, according to The Borneo Project.

This also means that logging companies might legally obtain permits to cut the forest in areas which had been previously disputed.

While timber companies have brought economic opportunities for some, providing job opportunities to villagers as drivers or labourers, many Kenyah community members in the Ulu Baram region have negative associations with the industry.

“We don’t agree with logging, because it is very damaging to the forests, water and ecosystems in our area,” says David Bilong, a member of Long Semiyang village, which is about a half-hour boat ride from Long Moh village.

Both Long Moh and Long Semiyang have dwindling populations, with about 200 and 100 full-time residents, respectively.

Extensive logging roads in the region have increased accessibility for the villages, resulting in younger community members migrating to nearby towns for work and sending remittances back home to support relatives.

Those who remain in the village, or “kampung”, live in traditional longhouses which are made up of rows of private family apartments connected by shared verandas. Here, community activities like rattan weaving, meetings and karaoke-singing take place.

Bilong has played an active role in community activism over the years. For him, deforestation activities have contributed to the undermining of generational knowledge, as physical landmarks have been removed from their lived environment.

“It’s difficult for us to go to the jungle now,” he explains.

“We don’t know any more which hill is the one we go to for hunting,” he says.

“We don’t even know where the hill went.”

For decades, Indigenous communities across Ulu Baram have shown their resistance to logging activities by making physical blockades.

This typically entails community members camping for weeks, or even months, along logging roads to physically obstruct unwanted outsiders from entering native customary territories.

The primary legal framework regulating forest use is the Sarawak Forest Ordinance (1958), which grants the state government sweeping control over forest areas, including the issuance of timber licences.

Now, local communities are increasingly turning to strategic tools to assert their rights.

One of these tools is the creation of community maps.

“We are moving from oral tradition to physical documentation,” says Indigenous human rights activist Celine Lim.

Lim is the managing director of Save Rivers, one of the local organisations supporting Ulu Baram’s Indigenous communities to map their lands.

“Because of outside threats, this transition needs to take place,” Lim tells Al Jazeera.

Unlike official government maps, these maps reflect the community’s cultural landmarks.

They include markers for things like burial grounds, sacred sites and trees which contain poison for hunting with blow darts, reflecting how Indigenous people actually relate to and manage their land sustainably.

“For Indigenous people, the way that they connect to land is definitely a lot deeper than many of our conventional ways,” says Lim.

“They see the mountains, the rivers, the land, the forest and in the past, these were entities,” she says.

“The way you’d respect a person is the way that they would respect these entities.”

By physically documenting how their land is managed, Indigenous communities can use maps to assert their presence and protect their native customary territory.

“This community map is really important for us,” says Bilong, who played a role in the creation of Long Semiyang’s community map.

“When we make a map, we know what our area is and what is in our area,” he says.

“It is important that we create boundaries”.

The tradition of creating community maps in Sarawak first emerged in the 1990s, when the Switzerland-based group Bruno Manser-Fonds – named after a Swiss environmental activist who disappeared in Sarawak in 2000 – began supporting the Penan community with mapping activities.

The Penan are a previously nomadic indigenous group in Sarawak who have now mostly settled as farmers.

Through mapping, they have documented at least 5,000 river names and 1,000 topographic features linked to their traditions, and their community maps have been used numerous times as critical documentation to prevent logging.

Other groups, such as the Kenyah, are following suit with the creation of their own community maps.

“The reason why the trend of mapping has continued is because in other parts of Baram and Sarawak, they’ve proven to be successful,” says the Borneo Project’s Merriman, “at least in getting the attention of logging companies and the government.”

Now, local organisations are encouraging communities to further solidify their assertion to their native customary territories by joining a global platform hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme that recognises Indigenous and community conserved areas, known as the ICCA.

Communities participating in the ICCA are listed on a globally accessible online database, and this international visibility offers a place for them to publicise threats and land grabs.

In Sarawak, the international visibility afforded through ICCA registration could offer an alternative avenue of protection for communities.

Merriman says that another important aspect of applying for ICCA recognition is the process itself of registering.

“The ICCA process is fundamentally an organising tool and a self-strengthening tool,” she says.

“It’s not just about being on the database. It’s about going through the process of a community banding together to protect its own land, to come up with a shared vision of responding to threats and what they want to do to try to make alternative income.”

Safeguarding Indigenous communities in Sarawak also has an international significance, activists say.

As the impacts of climate change intensify in Malaysia and globally, the potential role of Sarawak’s rainforests in climate change mitigation is increasingly being recognised.

“There’s plenty of talk at the state level about protecting forests,” says Jettie Word, executive director of The Borneo Project.

“Officials often say the right things in terms of recognising their importance in combatting climate change. Though ongoing logging indicates a gap between rhetoric and reality,” Word says.

“While mapping alone can’t protect a forest from a billion-dollar timber project, when it’s combined with community organising and campaigning, it’s often quite powerful and we’ve seen it successfully keep the companies away,” she says.

“The maps provide solid evidence of a community’s territory that is difficult to refute.”

One of California’s most influential labor organizations endorsed redrawing the state’s congressional maps to counter President Trump’s effort to push Republican states, notably Texas, to increase his party’s numbers in Congress in next year’s midterm election.

The California Federation of Labor Unions voted unanimously Tuesday to support putting a measure on the ballot in November. The proposal, backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and many of the state’s Democratic leaders, would ask voters to temporarily change congressional district boundaries that were drawn by an independent redistricting commission four years ago, with some conditions.

Republicans could potentially lose up to a half dozen seats in California’s 52-member delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. After it returns for its summer recess on Aug. 18, the California Legislature is expected to vote to place the measure on the statewide ballot in a special election.

“President Trump has said that Republicans are ‘entitled’ to five more congressional votes in Texas. Well, they aren’t entitled to steal the 2026 election. California’s unions refuse to stand by as democracy is tested,” Lorena Gonzalez, president of the federation, said in a statement. “California Labor is unified in our resolve to fight back against President Trump’s anti-worker agenda.”

Redistricting — the esoteric redrawing of the nation’s 435 congressional districts — typically occurs once every decade after the U.S. census tallies the population across the nation. Population shifts can result in changes in a state’s allocation of congressional seats, such as when California lost a seat after the 2020 census the first time in the state’s history.

The political redistricting process had long been crafted by elected officials to give their political parties an edge or to protect incumbents — sometimes in brazen, bizarrely shaped districts. Californians voted in 2010 to create an independent commission to draw congressional maps based on communities of interest, logical geography and ensuring representation of minority communities.

The ballot measure being pushed by Newsom and others would allow state lawmakers to help determine district boundaries for the next three election cycles if Texas approves a pending measure to reconfigure districts to increase Republican-held congressional seats in that state. Line-drawing would return to the independent commission after the 2030 census.

The California Federation of Labor is committed to spending several million dollars supporting a mid-decade redistricting ballot measure, on top of what it already planned to spend on competitive congressional races next year, according to a person familiar with the plans who asked for anonymity to speak candidly about the strategy.

A spokesperson for several organizations devoted to fighting any effort to change the state’s redistricting process said that Charles Munger Jr., the son of a billionaire, and who bankrolled the ballot measure to create the independent commission, is committed to making sure it is not weakened.

“While Charles Munger has been out of politics since 2016, he has said he will vigorously defend the reforms he helped pass, including nonpartisan redistricting,” said Amy Thoma, spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition. “His previous success in passing ballot measures in California means he knows exactly what is needed to be successful. We will have the resources necessary to make our coalition heard.”

Texas Republicans, at President Donald Trump’s urging, are preparing to redraw the state’s congressional map in a way that could flip up to five seats to the GOP in 2026. Trump hopes to boost Republicans’ chances of maintaining a narrow House majority amid the headwinds of the midterm election.

The manoeuvre in Texas would be legal and not unprecedented for the state, which also undertook a Republican-driven redistricting in 2003. But Democrats have called the move a partisan power grab and an affront to the traditional practice of drawing new congressional districts every 10 years, after a new Census.

But the debate over Texas’s electoral map has also prompted broader questions over the fairness of the way in which voting districts are outlined. And the one state bigger than Texas – California – has caught the attention of Vice President JD Vance.

“The gerrymander in California is outrageous,” Vance posted July 30 on X. “Of their 52 congressional districts, 9 of them are Republican. That means 17 percent of their delegation is Republican when Republicans regularly win 40 percent of the vote in that state. How can this possibly be allowed?”

So, does California have an unfair map, as Vance said?

By the numbers, California is not a dramatic outlier when it comes to the difference between its congressional and presidential vote. However, because this difference is multiplied by a large number of districts – since California is the United States’ most populous state – it produces a bounty of House seats beyond what the state’s presidential vote alone would predict.

Vance’s description of California’s map as a “gerrymander” is also doubtful – it was drawn by a bipartisan commission, not Democratic legislators. Gerrymandering is done by politicians and political parties.

Vance’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this article.

What the numbers show

Our first step was to measure the difference between each state’s House-seat breakdown by party and its presidential-vote breakdown by party, which is what Vance cited. (Our analysis builds off of a 2023 Sabato’s Crystal Ball story written by this author. Sabato’s Crystal Ball is a publication of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.) We removed from consideration any state with one, two or three House members in its delegation, because these small states have wide differentials that skew the comparison.

For red states won by Trump, we took the percentage of Republican seats in the House delegation and subtracted the percentage of the vote Trump won in that state. Conversely, for blue states won by Kamala Harris, we took the percentage of Democratic seats in the House delegation and subtracted the percentage of the vote Harris won in the state.

Our analysis found that California did elect more Democrats to the House than its presidential vote share would have predicted, but the state was not an outlier. With 83% of its House seats held by Democrats and 58% of its 2024 presidential votes going to Democrats, California ranked 13th nationally among 35 states that have at least four seats in their delegation.

California has the nation’s 13th widest difference between House and presidential results

The top 13 differentials were split roughly evenly between blue and red states.

In six states that have at least four House seats – red Iowa, Utah, Arkansas and Oklahoma, and blue Connecticut and Massachusetts – a single party controls every House seat, even though the winning presidential candidate won between 56% and 66% of the vote in those states.

Another six states had a differential equal to or wider than California’s: Red South Carolina and Tennessee, and blue Oregon, Illinois and Maryland, plus purple Wisconsin.

California does stand out by another measure, because of its size.

If you multiply the House-to-presidential differential by the number of House seats in the delegation, you get a figure for “excess House seats”, the term used in the 2023 Sabato’s Crystal Ball article – essentially, a majority party’s bonus in House seats beyond what presidential performance would predict.

Because California has a large population represented by many House districts, even its modest differential produces a lot of extra Democratic House seats – 12, to be exact. That’s the largest of any state; the closest competitors are blue Illinois and New York, and red Florida, each of which has more than four excess seats for the majority party.

Texas’s current congressional map has 3.7 excess seats for the Republicans. That would increase to an 8.7-seat GOP bonus if the GOP can flip the five seats they’re hoping for in 2026.

Is California a “gerrymander”?

Vance described California’s map as a gerrymander, but political experts doubted that this term applies. A gerrymander typically refers to a map drawn by partisan lawmakers, and California’s is drawn by a commission approved by voters specifically to remove the partisanship from congressional map drawing.

“California’s congressional map is no gerrymander,” said Nathaniel Rakich, a contributing analyst to Inside Elections, a political analytics publication. “It was drawn by an independent commission consisting of five Republicans, five Democrats, and four independents that is generally upheld as one of the fairest map-drawing entities in any state.”

Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, said commissions tend to produce a more competitive House battleground than a fully partisan system. Of the 19 House seats his outlet currently rates as toss-ups going into 2026, only two come from states where one party had a free hand to gerrymander the current district lines.

“I think it’s fair to say that commission and court-drawn maps can inject some competitiveness into the process,” Kondik said.

Because the seats were drawn by a commission, California has a lot of competitive seats. This helps California Republicans despite the state’s Democratic tilt.

According to the 2024 pre-election ratings by Sabato’s Crystal Ball, California had three Democratic-held seats in the “lean Democratic” category, and two more that were rated “likely Democratic”.

So, going into the election, five of California’s 40 Democratic-held seats are at least somewhat vulnerable to a Republican takeover. Texas Democrats aren’t so lucky, under its existing map: They are able to realistically target only one “likely Republican” seat out of 25 held by the GOP.

Sometimes, geography is the enemy of a “fair” map

Despite map makers’ efforts, it is sometimes impossible to produce a map that jibes perfectly with a state’s overall partisan balance. The cold facts of geography can prevent this.

One oft-cited example is Massachusetts, which hasn’t elected a Republican to the US House since 1994. There are few Republican hotbeds in Massachusetts, and experts say they can’t be easily connected into coherent congressional districts.

“Especially in deep-red or deep-blue states, parties tend to get a higher share of seats than they do of votes,” Rakich said. “Imagine a state where Republicans get two-thirds of the vote in every district; obviously, they would get 100 percent of their seats.”

Rakich said Democrats are geographically distributed more favourably in California. But in other states, Republicans benefit from better geographic distribution.

“I haven’t heard Vance complain about the fact that Democrats only get 25 percent of Wisconsin’s congressional seats despite regularly getting 50 percent of the vote there,” Rakich added.

WASHINGTON — A last-ditch effort by California Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional map for the 2026 election, countering a similar push by Texas Republicans, is now up against the clock.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday that Democrats are moving forward with a plan to put a rare mid-decade redistricting plan before voters on Nov. 4. But state lawmakers will craft a “trigger,” he said, meaning California voters would only vote on the measure if Texas moved forward with its own plans to redraw Congressional boundaries to add five more Republican seats.

“It’s cause and effect, triggered on the basis of what occurs or doesn’t occur in Texas,” Newsom said. “I hope they do the right thing, and if they do, then there’ll be no cause for us to have to move forward.”

Democratic lawmakers in Texas on Monday left the state to deprive Republicans of the quorum needed to pass the new maps. Republican lawmakers voted 85 to 6 to send state troopers to arrest them and bring them back to the Capitol, a move that is largely symbolic, since the lawmakers won’t face criminal or civil charges.

The outcome of the dueling efforts between Texas and California could determine which party controls the House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections, which Democrats see as the last bulwark to President Trump’s actions in his second term. Trump has pushed Republicans to add more GOP seats in Texas, hoping to stave off a midterm defeat.

Democrats hold 43 of California’s 52 congressional seats. Early discussions among California politicians and strategists suggest that redrawn lines could shore up some vulnerable incumbent Democrats by making their purple districts more blue, while forcing five or six of the state’s nine Republican members into tougher reelection fights.

But nothing official can be done until state lawmakers return from recess to Sacramento on Aug. 18.

Democrats, who hold a supermajority in the Legislature, would have less than a month to draw a new map, hold hearings and negotiate the language of a bill calling for the special November election, leaving just enough time for voter guides to be mailed and ballots to be printed.

Democratic lawmakers and operatives said Monday that the timeline is doable, but they would have to act quickly.

California’s Democratic congressional delegation expressed consensus during a video meeting Monday with moving forward with a ballot measure that would allow mid-decade redistricting only if another state moves forward with it, according to a person familiar with the virtual meeting, and that the change would be temporary. They expressed their support for the independent commission.

California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said the Democratic caucus met Sunday night “to discuss the urgent threat of a continued, blatant Trumpian power grab — a coordinated effort to undermine our democracy and silence Californians.”

Democrats in the California Senate and Assembly held separate meetings to discuss redistricting. David Binder, a pollster who works with Newsom, presented internal polling that showed tepid early support among voters for temporarily changing state laws to allow the Legislature to draw new maps for elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030.

“Our voters must be empowered to push back,” Rivas said. “California has never backed down — and we won’t start now.”

Texas Democrats resist

Democratic lawmakers’ exodus from Austin on Monday denied Republicans the quorum necessary to proceed with a vote on a redrawn state map that could net Republicans five congressional seats.

Democratic lawmakers balked at threats from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. The Texas House Democratic Caucus put out a statement riffing on a slogan made famous during the Texas Revolution: “Come and take it.” One member of the caucus noted that being absent was not a crime and that Texas warrants can’t be served in Illinois or New York, where many lawmakers have gone.

“There is no felony in the Texas penal code for what he says,” said Rep. Jolanda Jones, a Democrat. “He’s trying to get soundbites, and he has no legal mechanism.”

The Texas House Republican speaker, Dustin Burrows, said that Democrats leaving does not “stop this House from doing its work. It only delays it.”

But Abbott’s legal options to get his redistricting bill passed, by expelling Democrats or compelling their return, appear narrow, likely forcing the governor’s office to make challenges in courtrooms based in Democratic districts. Abbott has until the end of the year to secure new maps for them to be used in the state’s March 3 primaries.

At a news conference last week in Sacramento, Newsom compared Trump’s pressure on Abbott to add five Republican congressional seats as akin to his efforts to “find” 12,000 votes to win Georgia after the 2020 election.

“We’re not here to eliminate the commission,” he said. “We’re here to provide a pathway in ’26, ’28 and in 2030 for congressional maps on the basis of a response to the rigging of the system by the president of the United States. It won’t just happen in Texas. I imagine he’s making similar calls all across this country. It’s a big deal. I don’t think it gets much bigger.”

Escalation on a deadline

For decades, redrawing California’s electoral maps amounted to political warfare. In 1971, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan vetoed a redistricting plan that he called “a mockery of good government.” The California Supreme Court ultimately drew the lines, and did so again in 1991, when then-Gov. Pete Wilson rejected maps drawn by Democrats.

California’s state lawmakers last drew their own district lines in 2001, after members of both parties signed off on a plan drawn up to protect incumbents.

In 2008, California voters stripped state lawmakers of the power to draw their own districts by passing Proposition 11, which created an independent redistricting commission. Two years later, voters handed the power to redraw congressional district maps to the same panel by passing Proposition 20. That group drew the lines before the 2012 elections, and again after the 2020 census.

California set the date for its last statewide special election — the 2021 attempted recall of Newsom — 75 days in advance. County election officials would need at least that much time to find voting locations and prepare ballots for overseas and military voters, which must be mailed 45 days before election day, one elections official said.

“We need at least a similar timeline and calendar to what took place in 2021 for the gubernatorial recall election,” said Dean Logan, the top elections official in Los Angeles County.

Similarly, he said, counties will “need the funding provided upfront by the state to conduct this election, and the funding to do the redistricting associated with it, because counties are not prepared financially.”

The 2021 recall election cost California taxpayers about $200 million. The preliminary estimate for Los Angeles County to administer the redistricting election is about $60 million.

National fight over state lines

Republican strategist Jon Fleischman, former executive director of the California Republican Party, said Republicans nationally need to take state Democrats’ efforts to redraw the maps seriously — by pulling out their checkbooks.

“Our statewide Republican fundraising has atrophied because it has been over a generation since we had a viable statewide candidate in California,” he said. “The kind of money that it would take to battle this — it would have to be national funding effort.”

While Texas prompted California Democrats to take action, Fleischman said, the issue has enough momentum here that it ultimately doesn’t matter what Texas does.

“If Gavin Newsom places this on the ballot, it means he’s already done his polling and has figured out that it will pass because he cares more running for president that redistricting in California,” Fleischman said. “And he knows he can’t afford to make this play and lose.”

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who championed the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission, has not weighed in on the mid-decade redistricting efforts in Texas and California. But a spokesperson for the former governor made clear that he vehemently opposes both.

Since leaving office, Schwarzenegger has fought for independent map-drawing across the nation. Redistricting is among the political reforms that are the focus of the Schwarzenegger Institute at USC.

“His take on all of this is everyone learned in preschool or kindergarten that two wrongs don’t make a right. He thinks gerrymandering is evil,” said Daniel Ketchell, a spokesperson for Schwarzenegger. “It takes power from the people and gives it to politicians. He thinks it’s evil, no matter where they do it.”

Wilner reported from Washington, Nelson and Mehta from Los Angeles and Luna from Sacramento.