partisan

The battlefield is narrowing and the timeline is tightening in a congressional redistricting contest among states seeking a partisan advantage ahead of the November midterm elections.

The end of Maryland’s legislative session this week marked the demise of Democratic efforts to reshape the state’s U.S. House districts. But Florida lawmakers are to begin a special session Monday for a Republican attempt at congressional redistricting. And Virginia voters are deciding Tuesday on a Democratic redistricting plan that could help the party win several additional House seats in this year’s election.

Voting districts typically are redrawn once a decade, after each census. But President Trump triggered an unusual round of mid-decade redistricting last year when he urged Texas Republicans to redraw House districts to give the GOP an edge in the midterm elections. California Democrats reciprocated, and redistricting efforts soon cascaded across states.

So far, Republicans believe they could win nine additional seats in states where they have redrawn congressional districts, while Democrats think they could gain six seats elsewhere because of redistricting. But that presumes past voting patterns hold in November. And that’s uncertain, especially since the party in power typically loses seats in the midterms and Trump faces negative approval ratings in polls.

Democrats need to gain just a few seats in November to wrest control of the House from Republicans, potentially allowing them to obstruct Trump’s agenda.

Where redistricting remains in play

Officials in more than a dozen states debated or floated redistricting proposals. The immediate focus is on two states — one led by Republicans, the other by Democrats.

Florida

Current map: eight Democrats, 20 Republicans

Proposed map: Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has called a special legislative session to begin Monday on congressional redistricting. Republicans haven’t yet publicly released a specific plan.

Challenges: The state constitution says districts cannot be drawn with intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.

Virginia

Current map: six Democrats, five Republicans

Proposed map: A new U.S. House map passed by the Democratic-led General Assembly could help Democrats win up to four additional seats. For the map to take effect, voters would have to approve a constitutional amendment allowing mid-decade redistricting. That amendment is on Tuesday’s ballot.

Challenges: The state Supreme Court ruled the referendum can proceed, but it has yet to rule whether the effort is legal. The court is considering an appeal of a Tazewell County judge’s ruling that the amendment is invalid because lawmakers violated their own rules while passing it.

Where new House districts were approved

New U.S. House districts have been adopted in six states since last summer. Four took up redistricting voluntarily, one was required to by its state constitution and another did so under court order.

Texas

Current map: 13 Democrats, 25 Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a revised House map into law last August that could help Republicans win five additional seats.

Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court in December cleared the way for the new districts to be used in this year’s elections. It put on hold a lower-court ruling that blocked the new map because it was “racially gerrymandered.”

California

Current map: 43 Democrats, nine Republicans

New map: Voters in November approved revised House districts drawn by the Democratic-led Legislature that could help Democrats win five additional seats.

Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court in February allowed the new districts to be used in this year’s elections. It denied an appeal from Republicans and the Department of Justice, which claimed the districts impermissibly favor Hispanic voters.

Missouri

Current map: two Democrats, six Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a revised House map into law last September that could help Republicans win an additional seat.

Challenges: A Cole County judge ruled the new map is in effect as election officials work to determine whether a referendum petition seeking a statewide vote complies with constitutional criteria and contains enough valid petition signatures. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit claiming mid-decade redistricting is illegal. It’s scheduled to hear arguments in May on claims the new districts violate compactness requirements and should be placed on hold pending the potential referendum.

North Carolina

Current map: four Democrats, 10 Republicans

New map: The Republican-led General Assembly gave final approval in October to revised districts that could help Republicans win an additional seat.

Challenges: A federal court panel in November denied a request to block the revised districts from being used in the midterm elections.

Ohio

Current map: five Democrats, 10 Republicans

New map: A bipartisan panel composed primarily of Republicans voted in October to approve revised House districts that improve Republicans’ chances of winning two additional seats.

Challenges: None. The state constitution required new districts before the 2026 election, because Republicans had approved the prior map without sufficient Democratic support after the last census.

Utah

Current map: no Democrats, four Republicans

New map: A judge in November imposed revised House districts that could help Democrats win a seat. The court ruled that lawmakers had circumvented anti-gerrymandering standards passed by voters when adopting the prior map.

Challenges: A federal court panel and the state Supreme Court, in February, each rejected Republican challenges to the judicial map selection.

Where redistricting efforts were denied

Governors, lawmakers or partisan officials pushed for congressional redistricting in numerous states. In at least five states, those efforts gained some initial traction but ultimately fell short in either the legislature or court.

Maryland

Current map: seven Democrats, one Republican

Proposed map: The Democratic-led House in February passed a redistricting plan backed by Democratic Gov. Wes Moore that could help Democrats win an additional seat.

Challenges: The legislative session ended in April without the Democratic-led Senate voting on the redistricting plan. The state Senate president said there were concerns it could backfire on Democrats.

New York

Current map: 19 Democrats, seven Republicans

Proposed map: A judge in January ordered a state commission to draw new boundaries for the only congressional district in New York City represented by a Republican, ruling it unconstitutionally dilutes the votes of Black and Hispanic residents.

Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court in March granted Republicans’ request to halt the judge’s order, leaving the existing district lines in place for the 2026 election.

Indiana

Current map: two Democrats, seven Republicans

Proposed map: The Republican-led House passed a redistricting plan in December that would have improved Republicans’ chances of winning two additional seats.

Challenges: Despite pressure from Trump to adopt the new map, the Republican-led Senate rejected it in a bipartisan vote on Dec. 11.

Kansas

Current map: one Democrat, three Republicans

Proposed map: Some Republican lawmakers mounted an attempt to take up congressional redistricting.

Challenges: Lawmakers dropped a petition drive for a special session on congressional redistricting in November, after failing to gain enough support.

Illinois

Current map: 14 Democrats, three Republicans

Proposed map: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in October proposed a new U.S. House map that would improve Democrats’ chances of winning an additional seat.

Challenges: The Democratic-led General Assembly declined to take up redistricting, citing concerns about the effect on representation for Black residents.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — A new poll shows California voters are sharply divided over two brewing statewide ballot measures stirring up the nation’s partisan and economic divides: a one-time tax on billionaires to pay for mostly healthcare and a voter ID mandate that includes citizenship verification.

The survey conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed 52% of registered voters supported the billionaire’s tax, while 33% said they opposed it. Fifteen percent were undecided.

Support for the voter ID measure was more evenly split, with 44% of voters in support, 45% opposed and the remainder undecided.

The pair of statewide proposals, which have yet to qualify for California’s November ballot, emanated from opposite sides of California’s political spectrum. Organized labor and progressives are pushing hard for a new wealth tax in response to Republican cuts to federal healthcare programs, and the GOP-led call for additional voter restrictions comes in the wake of President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Poll director Mark DiCamillo said he “was a little surprised” by the results given how much attention each measure has already received.

“Just from reading the press accounts of these initiatives, I thought they would both be well ahead. There’s been a lot of discussion about them and advocates seem to be very confident in their chances of passage, but the polls seem to indicate otherwise,” he said.

The divisions over each measure fell largely along partisan and ideological lines.

On the billionaire’s tax initiative, 72% of Democratic voters said they would support the measure if the election were held today — and the same percentage of Republicans oppose it. A slim majority — 51% — of voters who are unaffiliated or registered with another party support the wealth tax, while 30% said they oppose it, with the remainder undecided.

Republican voters overwhelmingly support the voter ID initiative, with 91% saying they would vote for it. More than two-thirds of Democratic voters, 68%, said they would oppose the measure. No party preference voters appeared evenly split.

Neither ballot measure has officially qualified for the November ballot thus far, though proponents of the voter ID measure said this month that they turned in 1.3 million voter signatures to elections officials, well above the 875,000 required to qualify. Proponents of the new tax on billionaires have until June 24 to submit signatures to elections officials.

The billionaire tax has generated national news coverage and widespread debate over whether it would benefit low-income Californians or end up hurting the state’s tax base as billionaires move out of the state to avoid paying it.

The proposal is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which represents 120,000 workers in California. Union leaders say that the tax would raise $100 billion to backfill steep cuts to federal healthcare programs under a sweeping tax and spending bill approved by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed in the summer by Trump.

The measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California residents who are worth $1 billion or more, with options to pay it over multiple years.

According to SEIU-UHW, the new tax would apply to around 200 people in the state, though several wealthy tech leaders have made moves to change their residences and avoid paying the tax should it pass. In recent months, Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and others have bought up lavish beachfront estates and new commercial office spaces in South Florida.

Some of those billionaires are also ponying up to defeat the measure. Brin, who according to Forbes is the world’s third-richest person, has contributed $45 million to a new ballot measure committee called Building a Better California, which is pushing an alternative statewide ballot measure that could scrap the billionaire’s tax.

Brandon Castillo, a veteran ballot measure campaign strategist who is not working on either of the two measures, said even though it’s currently polling above 50%, the billionaire’s tax is starting out “in a really shaky position.”

“This is not a very strong place to start,” he said. “That’s not to say they can’t keep this thing over 50%, but when you’re starting just barely above 50% and you have a tsunami of money and a huge campaign against you, it’s really hard to keep yourself at that level.”

Though previous public opinion polls at the state and national levels have shown broad support for requiring proof of citizenship to vote in elections, even among Democrats, the new Berkeley poll showed liberal voters are skeptical of the measure.

Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof of citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID requirements threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.

Under current law, Californians are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. They are required to provide identification when registering to vote, and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and a U.S. citizen.

The poll showed that slim majorities of predominantly Spanish-speaking voters, voters who were born in another country and first-generation immigrants support the voter ID measure. A plurality of Latino voters also favor it, with 44% in support and 41% opposed.

But DiCamillo cautioned against reading too much into those numbers, noting that awareness of the measure is still relatively low.

“I’ve always seen in my history of measuring Latino voters’ support that they are relatively late deciders on most ballot measures,” he said. “How they break will be critical. I would say we’ll have to look at how they feel when we do our final preelection poll.”

Voter ID laws are also a top priority of Trump, who has pressured the Senate into taking up the SAVE Act, which would impose nationwide requirements for proof of citizenship to vote and already has passed the House of Representatives.

Castillo said Trump’s support could sway Democratic and liberal-leaning independents to vote against the measure.

Both DiCamillo and Castillo noted that with the November election still seven months away, voters are not paying much attention and those on either side of each ballot measure have not launched major campaigns yet.

“I suspect by the time election day comes around, these awareness numbers on the billionaire’s tax certainly are going to be much higher,” Castillo said. “You’re going to see 80-90% of voters familiar with it, just because they’re going to be inundated with advertising and earned media between now and November.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 registered California voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

March 16 (UPI) — Senate Republicans are trying to pass the SAVE America Act this week, as both the GOP and Democrats are gearing up to fight over the election reform bill that would require those registering to vote to show proof of citizenship with passports or birth certificates.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act already has broad public support, but Democrats are strongly against it. Republicans and President Donald Trump want a prolonged fight, forcing Democrats to defend their opposition.

Republicans say it will make elections safer, but Democrats call it a “voter suppression act.”

The bill would force people registering to vote to show proof of citizenship with a passport or certified birth certificate. People who have legally changed their name, including transgender people and most married women, would have a more difficult time.

According to State Department statistics, around half of Americans have a valid passport, and a first-time applicant would have to pay $165 to get one. The University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement said that 2.6 million Americans do not have a government-issued photo ID.

A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showed that 71% of voters support the SAVE Act.

House Republicans passed a version of the bill along party lines in February. But the Senate needs 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. Right now, Republicans have a 53-47 majority, and Sen. John Fetterman, I-Pa., who usually votes with the GOP, has said he’s against the bill.

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he wants to bring the bill to a vote to “put Democrats on the record.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told The Hill that Trump wants to see an epic fight, similar to the two-month battle to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“What I want to do is try to maximize the period of time in which we debate it,” Lee said.

“They faced a 32-vote cloture deficit at the time it came over from the House in March of ’64,” Lee told The Hill. “They were able to close a 32-vote cloture deficit. It took them 60 days, but they got there.”

He said taking a longer time gives lawmakers clarity.

“Debating a bill that continues to get more popular even as people are trying to slow it down and stop it and obstruct it sometimes sharpens the minds of individual lawmakers and makes them more amenable in the end to negotiation,” Lee added. “That’s what we’re looking at here.”

Trump and other conservative Senators want to force Democrats to do a talking filibuster, but Thune has said there just aren’t enough votes to do so. He said the Republicans aren’t unified enough to table potential Democratic amendments.

“The votes aren’t there, one, to nuke the filibuster and the votes aren’t there for a talking filibuster. It’s just a reality,” The Hill reported Thune said last week. “I’m the person who has to deliver sometimes the not-so-good news that the math doesn’t add up but those are the facts and there’s no getting around it.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats are prepared for the battle.

“We don’t yet know what Thune is doing … but we’re prepared for every possible scenario,” Schumer told reporters Sunday.

“My caucus really feels strongly that this would be a horror … one of the worst things that’s happened in the history of this country in terms of allowing people to vote,” he said.

Trump has said he will not sign any legislation until the act passes the Senate.