Partisan

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld highly partisan state election maps that permit one party to win most seats, even when most voters cast ballots for the other side.

Partisan gerrymandering has allowed Republicans to control power in several closely divided states. And it has been repeatedly condemned for depriving citizens of a fair vote and letting politicians rig the outcomes.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for a 5-4 conservative majority, ruled that citizens may not sue in federal court over the issue.

Partisan gerrymandering claims “present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts,” he said, tossing out lower court rulings that North Carolina’s Republicans and Maryland’s Democrats had drawn skewed districts to entrench their party in power.

Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, it has never struck down an election map because it was unfairly partisan, despite four decades of lawsuits over the issue.

Thursday’s decision goes even further, closing the courthouse door to future claims. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions,” he wrote in Rucho vs. Common Cause.

The court’s four liberal justices dissented, warning that new technology has made partisan gerrymandering easier and more precise than ever before.

“These are not your grandfather’s — let alone the framers’ — gerrymanders,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

“The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people,” she said, reading her dissent in the court. “Of all the time to abandon the court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government.”

The ruling substantially raises the stakes for the 2020 election. In many states, whichever party controls the state legislature and the governor’s office at that time will be in a prime position to gerrymander electoral districts in their favor and lock in political power for years to come.

“This is obviously a deeply disappointing outcome,” said Allison Riggs, a voting rights lawyer who represented the League of Women Voters in the North Carolina case. There, the state’s Republican leaders drew an election map that aimed to lock in 10 of 13 seats for the GOP.

“Unlike citizens in some other states, North Carolinians cannot force redistricting reform upon recalcitrant legislators,” Riggs said. “We must raise our voices even more loudly, demanding change.”

While reform advocates were distraught over the decision — envisioning an era of ruthless, no-holds-barred gerrymandering — there is reason to believe the result may not be as drastic as feared.

Numerous states, including California, have taken the line-drawing process away from politicians and placed it in the hands of independent commissioners charged with drawing fair and competitive political maps.

Roberts appeared to endorse these state reforms, even though he voted in dissent four years ago in an Arizona case to strike down these voter initiatives as improper. He said then the power to draw election districts was reserved to the state legislature alone.

“Where we go from here is where we’ve been,” said Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Most of the real action has been in state courts or through ballot initiatives. … We are back to a limited set of tools, but tools that are still immensely powerful.”

States are also getting more involved. He noted that state supreme courts in Pennsylvania and Florida have struck down maps as overly partisan. The Supreme Court’s decision blocks federal lawsuits over gerrymandering, but it does not alter the authority of state courts to make rulings based on their own state constitutions. In 2018, voters in five states — Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Utah — overhauled their redistricting processes by creating independent or bipartisan map-drawing commissions.

This year’s cases began with the 2010 midterm elections, in which Republicans won sweeping victories and took full control in politically divided states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Armed with new census data, GOP lawmakers drew election maps that all but guaranteed their candidates would win a majority. In Pennsylvania, Republicans won 13 of 18 congressional seats, and 12 of 16 in Ohio.

Last year, however, political reformers had high hopes that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy would join the four liberals and cast the crucial fifth vote against partisan gerrymandering. He had voiced repeated concern that voters were being cheated if politicians could decide the outcomes in advance.

But those hopes were dashed last June when the chief justice engineered a procedural ruling that scuttled a gerrymandering case from Wisconsin.

Kennedy then retired, and his replacement, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, cast the fifth vote with Roberts on Thursday to close the doors to these claims.

Justices reviewed two cases in reaching the decision.

In North Carolina, Republican leaders flatly admitted they drew an election map for “partisan advantage.” One state leader said he drew a map to give Republicans a 10-to-3 advantage, only because he could not devise a map that would yield an 11-to-2 advantage.

In Maryland, Democratic leaders shifted hundreds of thousands of voters with the aim of ousting a veteran Republican from Congress and creating a reliably Democratic district.

A three-judge court in North Carolina declared the election map unconstitutional and said it deprived Democrats of a fair vote. Another three-judge panel ruled Maryland’s Democrats deprived Republicans of a fair vote and free election.

In January, the justices agreed to hear appeals from both states. Last month, the court also put on hold gerrymandering rulings from Ohio and Michigan.

The chief justice wrote one opinion for the two cases and overturned the rulings from North Carolina and Maryland. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh signed on to the Roberts opinion.

Joining Kagan in dissent were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

More stories from David G. Savage »

Republicans and Democrats came together on the House floor on Wednesday to hold a moment of silence in honor of Charlie Kirk, just as news broke that the magnetic youth activist had been shot and killed.

The bipartisanship lasted about a minute.

The event quickly spiraled after a request to pray for Kirk from Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado led to objections from Democrats and a partisan shouting match.

Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, a close friend of Kirk’s, told Democrats on the floor that they “caused this” — a comment she later said she stood by, arguing that “their hateful rhetoric” against Republicans contributed to Kirk’s killing.

Johnson banged on the gavel, demanding order as the commotion continued.

“The House will be in order!” he yelled to no avail.

The incident underscored the deep-seated partisan tensions on Capitol Hill as the assassination of Kirk revives the debate over gun violence and acts of political violence in a divided nation. As Congress reacted to the news, lawmakers of both parties publicly denounced the assassination of Kirk and called it an unacceptable act of violence.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he was “deeply disturbed about the threat of violence that has entered our political life.”

“I pray that we will remember that every person, no matter how vehement our disagreement with them, is a human being and a fellow American deserving of respect and protection,” Thune said.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), whose husband, Paul, was attacked with a hammer three years ago, also denounced the fatal shooting.

“Political violence has absolutely no place in our nation,” she said in a post on X.

A few hours after the commotion on the House floor, the White House released a four-minute video of President Trump in which he said Kirk’s assassination marked a “dark moment for America.” He also blamed the violent act on the “radical left.”

“My administration will find each and every one of those that contributed to this atrocity, and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it,” Trump said as he grieved the loss of his close ally.

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.

California voters are heavily divided along partisan lines when it comes to President Trump, with large majorities of Democrats and unaffiliated voters disapproving of him and believing the country is headed in the wrong direction under his leadership, and many Republicans feeling the opposite, according to a new poll conducted for The Times.

The findings are remarkably consistent with past polling on the Republican president in the nation’s most populous blue state, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Poll.

“If you look at all the job ratings we’ve done about President Trump — and this carries back all the way through his first term — voters have pretty much maintained the same posture,” DiCamillo said. “Voters know who he is.”

The same partisan divide also showed up in the poll on a number of hot-button issues, such as Medicaid cuts and tariffs, DiCamillo said — with Democrats “almost uniformly” opposed to Trump’s agenda and Republicans “pretty much on board with what Trump is doing.”

Asked whether the sweeping tariffs that Trump has imposed on international trading partners have had a “noticeable negative impact” on their family spending, 71% of Democrats said yes, while 76% of Republicans said no.

“If you’re a Republican, you tend to discount the impacts — you downplay them or you just ignore them,” while Democrats “tend to blame everything on Trump,” DiCamillo said.

Asked whether they were confident that the Trump administration would provide California with the nearly $40 billion in wildfire relief aid it has requested in response to the devastating L.A.-area fires in January, 93% of Democrats said they were not confident — compared with the 43% of Republicans who said they were confident.

In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1, the effect is that Trump fared terribly in the poll overall, just as he has in recent presidential votes in the state.

The poll — conducted Aug. 11-17 with 4,950 registered voters interviewed — found 69% of likely California voters disapproved of Trump, with 62% strongly disapproving, while 29% approved of him. A similar majority, 68%, said they believed the country is headed in the wrong direction, while 26% said it’s headed in the right direction.

Whereas 90% of Democrats and 75% of unaffiliated voters said the country is on the wrong track, just 20% of Republicans felt that way, the poll found.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the poll.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the findings prove Trump’s agenda “is devastating communities across California who are dealing with the harmful, real life consequences” of the president’s policies.

“The Trump Administration does not represent the views of the vast majority of Californians and it’s why Trump has chosen California to push the limits of his constitutional power,” Padilla said. “As more Americans across the nation continue to feel the impacts of his destructive policies, public support will continue to erode.”

G. Cristina Mora, co-director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, or IGS, said the findings were interesting, especially in light of other recent polling for The Times that found slightly more nuanced Republican impressions — and more wariness — when it comes to Trump’s immigration agenda and tactics.

On his overall approval and on other parts of his agenda, including the tariffs and Medicaid cuts, “the strength of the partisanship is very clear,” Mora said.

Cuts to Medicaid

Voters in the state are similarly divided when it comes to recent decisions on Medicaid health insurance for low-income residents, the poll found. The state’s version is known as Medi-Cal.

For instance, Californians largely disapprove of new work requirements for Medicaid and Medi-Cal recipients under the Big Beautiful Bill that Trump championed and congressional Republicans recently passed into law, the poll found.

The bill requires most Medicaid recipients ages 18 to 64 to work at least 80 hours per month in order to continue receiving benefits. Republicans trumpeted the change as holding people accountable and safeguarding against abuses of federal taxpayer dollars, while Democrats denounced it as a threat to public health that would strip millions of vulnerable Americans of their health insurance.

The poll found 61% of Californians disapproved of the change, with 43% strongly disapproving of it, while 36% approved of it, with 21% strongly approving of it. Voters were sharply divided along party lines, however, with 80% of Republicans approving of the changes and 85% of Democrats disapproving of them.

Californians also disapproved — though by a smaller margin — of a move by California Democrats and Gov. Gavin Newsom to help close a budget shortfall by barring undocumented immigrant adults from newly enrolling in Medi-Cal benefits.

A slight majority of poll respondents, or 52%, said they disapproved of the new restriction, with 17% strongly disapproving of it. The poll found 43% of respondents approved of the change, including 30% who strongly approved of it.

Among Democrats, 77% disapproved of the change. Among Republicans, 87% approved of it. Among voters with no party preference, 52% disapproved.

More than half the poll respondents — 57% — said neither they nor their immediate family members receive Medi-Cal benefits, while 35% said they did. Of those who receive Medi-Cal, two-thirds — or 67% — said they were very or somewhat worried about losing, or about someone in their immediate family losing, their coverage due to changes by the Trump administration.

Nadereh Pourat, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, said there is historical evidence to show what is going to happen next under the changes — and it’s not good.

The work requirement will undoubtedly result in people losing health coverage, just as thousands did when Arkansas implemented a similar requirement years ago, she said.

When people lose coverage, the cost of preventative care goes up and they generally receive less of it, she said. “If the doctor’s visit competes with food on the table or rent, then people are going to skip those primary care visits,” she said — and often “end up in the emergency room” instead.

And that’s more expensive not just for them, but also for local and state healthcare systems, she said.

Cuts to high-speed rail

Californians also are heavily divided over the state’s efforts to build a high-speed rail line through the Central Valley, after the Trump administration announced it was clawing back $4 billion in promised federal funding.

The project was initially envisioned as connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco by 2026, but officials have since set new goals of connecting Bakersfield to Merced by 2030. The project is substantially over budget, and Trump administration officials have called in a “boondoggle.”

The poll found that 49% of Californians support the project, with 28% of them strongly in favor of it. It found 42% oppose the project, including 28% who strongly oppose it.

Among Democrats, 66% were in favor of the project. Among Republicans, 77% were opposed. Among voters with no party preference, 49% were in favor while 39% were opposed.

In Los Angeles County, 54% of voters were in favor of the project continuing, while 58% of voters in the Bay Area were in favor. In the Central Valley, 51% of voters were opposed, compared with 41% in favor.

State Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San José), who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, said political rhetoric around the project has clearly had an effect on how voters feel about it, and that is partly because state leaders haven’t done enough to lay out why the project makes sense economically.

“Healthy skepticism is a good thing, especially when you’re dealing with billions of dollars,” he said. “It’s on legislators and the governor right now in California to lay out a strategy that you can’t poke a lot of holes in, and that hasn’t been the case in the past.”

Cortese said he started life as an orchard farmer in what is now Silicon Valley, knows what major public infrastructure investments can mean for rural communities such as those in the Central Valley, and will be hyperfocused on that message moving forward.

“There is no part of California that I know of that’s been waiting for more economic development than Bakersfield. Probably second is Fresno,” he said.

He said he also will be stressing to local skeptics of the project that supporting the Trump administration taking $4 billion away from California would be a silly thing to do no matter their politics. Conservative local officials who understand that will be “key to help us turn the tide,” he said.

Last month, California’s high-speed rail authority sued the Trump administration over the withdrawal of funds. The state is also suing the Trump administration over various changes to Medicaid, over Trump’s tariffs and over immigration enforcement tactics.

Mora said the sharp divide among Democrats and Republicans on Trump and his agenda called to mind other recent polling that showed many voters immediately changed their views of the economy after Trump took office — with Republicans suddenly feeling more optimistic, and Democrats more pessimistic.

It’s all a reflection of our modern, hyperpartisan politics, she said, where people’s perceptions — including about their own economic well-being — are “tied now much more closely to ideas about who’s in power.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Associated Press)

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

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

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

‘No democracy left’

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

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

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

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

(Eric Gay / Associated Press)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a legal case?

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

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

It was not a new view for Roberts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Believe it or not, Vice President JD Vance has said a number of things over the years that I agree with.

For example, when he suggested “the American people will not tolerate another endless war” with regards to sending aid to Ukraine, I felt seen. When Vance told podcaster Theo Von “we need to release the Epstein list; that is an important thing,” I could not have agreed more. The sex trafficker received over $1.5 billion and 4,000 wire transfers to help pay for his operation. The American people should know who among us gave that monster money.

Recently Vance took to social media to point out that Republicans average 40% of the vote in California but under one redistricting scenario would be represented by only 9% of the state’s House seats.

“How can this possibly be allowed?” He pondered.

It’s a really good question — especially for Texas.

After Texas gained two spots because of population growth in 2021 — 95% of which is attributable to people of color — Gov. Greg Abbott signed off on a map that actually increased the number of districts in which most voters are white. In fact, 60% of the new state Senate districts were majority white despite white residents making up less than 40% of the population.

Vance is correct to point out there’s a dearth of Republican representation in California politics. But while Democrats have controlled the governor’s mansion and both state chambers for 11 consecutive years in the Golden State, in Texas the Republicans have held all three for 22 consecutive years — in large part because of the type of gerrymandering Vance denounced. (In California, it’s hard to fault partisan redistricting for the current mix of representation … because the state does not have partisan redistricting. Voters established an independent commission 14 years ago.)

Texas’ current map already seems to tilt in Republicans’ favor. Last year, the Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, won more than 40% of the vote in the Lone Star State, and yet today Republicans hold nearly 70% of the state’s House seats. And Abbott and his MAGA cohorts in office want even more.

In one sense it is a full circle moment for Vance to complain about gerrymandering considering it was a former vice president — Elbridge Gerry — who started it. One of the nation’s founding fathers, Gerry was governor of Massachusetts when he approved a Senate seat map that the Boston Gazette lampooned as being shaped like a salamander. That’s because it was drawn in an odd way to rig the system so that it bent toward Republicans. What Vance is complaining about was started by his party and has been the country’s reality since 1812.

That’s not to suggest Democrats are not also guilty.

Between 2010 and 2020, Illinois lost roughly 18,000 people. That reduction cost the state a House seat and required a new congressional map. For more than a decade, Republican Adam Kinzinger represented the 16th district — a swath of land that included moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. However, after the new map was drawn by Democrats, the 16th district was erased and Kinzinger was without a district.

That is the same Kinzinger who proved to be a crucial member of the Jan. 6 committee because the war vet put his country over party. So, while Illinois Democrats were busy grabbing more power with the new map in 2021, they unknowingly forced out a moderate Republican who would prove to be one of the few conservatives in Congress to stand up for democracy. He proved not only to be an ally of democracy-oriented Democrats, but to be one of the speakers at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, a move that he and they hoped would bring out more moderates to vote against Donald Trump.

Had the Democrats kept his district intact, perhaps they would have had an ally in the House fighting President Trump’s overreach. Remember in May when Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” passed the House by a single vote?

Therein lies the true danger of gerrymandering.

It’s not about what is snuffed out today but what is prevented from happening in an unforeseen future. Kinzinger voted with Trump 90% of the time, including against the first impeachment. Looking at that, I don’t blame Democrats for seeing him as a political foe back when they eliminated his district. However, when it mattered most, he was a democracy ally. Yet by then, he was seen as a doomed political figure because of gerrymandering. Sophocles himself couldn’t have written a more tragic tale of self-defeating hubris.

So yes, JD Vance has said a number of things over the years that I agree with: no endless wars, release the Epstein files, stop the gerrymandering. I agreed with the Vance who was interested in fighting for democracy. But to appease his boss, he’s retreated from principled stances. How the world has changed, and he with it.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

WASHINGTON, July 15 (UPIU) — Republican lawmakers alleged Tuesday that Democratic leaders have funneled hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to nonprofit organizations run by political allies, advancing what they called a “radical agenda” without public accountability.

Democrats fired back, calling the hearing a partisan distraction aimed at vilifying groups that serve vulnerable communities.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight’s hearing, titled “How Leftist Nonprofit Networks Exploit Federal Tax Dollars to Advance a Radical Agenda,” drew sharp partisan lines.

The subcommittee chair, Chair Rep. Jefferson Van Drew, R-N.J., said nonprofits that receive federal funds through agencies like USAID and the Justice Department are enacting policies Americans haven’t voted for, accusing Democratic leaders of “abuse of power.”

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, passionately disagreed, arguing the hearing was designed to advance President Donald Trump‘s political agenda, while ignoring pressing civil rights and public safety issues.

“This committee is spending its time holding a hearing with a title that sounds like it was ripped from a conspiracy law,” Crockett said.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, echoed the committee chair’s concerns, calling several taxpayer-funded initiatives under the Biden administration “stupid,” including spending on public broadcasting, diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and federal education grants.

Democrats, however, argued that the hearing lacked substance and accountability. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., criticized the proceeding as a “waste of time,” as it focused on grievances rather than governance, and that the committee did not call a single official from any of the groups allegedly advancing a radical agenda.

“If our motto is going to be finger-pointing for losers, then this hearing is for losers,” Raskin said.

Hen added that Republicans have been failing to address systemic challenges like gun violence and climate change, and that none of the groups mentioned has been involved in illegal actions, but instead the Republicans simply do not like what certain groups are doing.

For example, Raskin cited the mass firings of Justice Department attorneys who prosecuted Americans for their involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“Due process is what separates our freedoms from arbitrary state power,” he said.

As the hearing continued, Raskin was the first to bring the Jeffrey Epstein files into the conversation, questioning the Trump administration’s sudden lack of commitment to transparency by not releasing the information.

“Remember that they said this would be the most transparent administration in the United States,” he said.

Witnesses invited by Republican lawmakers argued that taxpayer dollars are being funneled into politically motivated organizations that push divisive agendas.

Tyler O’Neil, senior editor at The Daily Signal, singled out a $2 million grant to the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice for immigration-related services, calling it part of a broader “immigration industrial complex.”

O’Neill also criticized federal support for the ACLU and the AFL-CIO, arguing that union dues from federal employees were indirectly subsidizing left-leaning political causes.

Insha Rahman, vice president of advocacy and partnerships at the Vera Institute, told UPI, “Today’s congressional hearing was a distraction from the honest debate the American public deserves about the solutions that work to prevent crime, respond to crisis, and stop violence.

“The Department of Justice’s abrupt and illegal terminations of $820 million in grant funding to hundreds of organizations, including Vera, jeopardizes programs and services across the country — including in suburban and rural jurisdictions — that save lives and make communities safer.”

Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, attempted to redirect the conversation. He said that while he personally supports conservative organizations, like the Heritage Foundation, he would oppose federal funding for any ideologically driven group — including those with whom he agrees.

He argued that taxpayer dollars should only go to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor — actions he associated as biblically related good doings — but not socially controversial issues.

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and contributor to the conservative blueprint Project 2025, testified in a personal capacity and criticized USAID’s funding decisions under Ambassador Samantha Power, suggesting it began the pathway for the agency to prioritize progressive global initiatives over national interest.

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Gonzalez got into an escalated exchange when Gonzalez confronted Democrats about so-called “dark money” — where the source is not disclosed to the public — for groups tied to liberal causes.

Johnson fired back, pointing to the Heritage Foundation’s own opaque funding sources and ties to conservative megadonors like billionaire Charles Koch.

A last minute addition to the witness list was Luis CdeBaca, a former U.S. ambassador and anti-trafficking expert. CdeBaca defended the work of civil society organizations, arguing that they provide critical services to vulnerable populations — often filling gaps left by under-resourced government programs.

He warned against politicizing federal grantmaking, which he said should be based on impact, not ideology.

Rahman reacted similarly to Vera’s work, defending that “The DOJ grants Vera received supported our evidence-based work with correctional staff across the country to improve prison operations, training, and culture for both officers and people incarcerated; expand access to counseling and treatment for people in mental health crisis; and support police and law enforcement to better serve deaf survivors of domestic violence.”

WASHINGTON — In 2016, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center surveyed the American electorate and discovered levels of partisan mistrust and animosity worse than any in a generation. The findings helped explain how tribal American politics have become and the rise of a political figure, President Trump, who has made exploiting those divisions his main stock in trade.

Three years later, Pew is out with a new report, based on a survey of 9,895 American adults. Its conclusion? Partisan divisions have gotten worse.

Just over half of people who identify themselves as Republicans say that Democrats are “more immoral” than other Americans, for example. Just under half of people who identify themselves as Democrats say the same about Republicans. In both cases, the share holding that view of the other side has increased since 2016.

And this latest survey was conducted in early September — before the impeachment debate took hold.

IT’S NOT JUST TRUMP

Democratic figures, most notably former Vice President Joe Biden, often blame Trump for the divisions in American society. But while the president has definitely stoked the fires of grievance, the earlier Pew study serves as a reminder that the blaze existed before him — he probably wouldn’t have captured the Republican nomination without it.

Partisanship has raged out of control because the two party labels have become proxies for so many preexisting divides. Democrats have become a party of a racially diverse, urban, coastal population, much of which is unmoored from traditional religious practices and accepting of immigration and dramatic changes in gender roles and sexual mores. Republicans are increasingly the party of older, white, rural conservatives, suspicious of urban elites and feeling threatened by immigrants and what they see as a decline of traditional morality and social order.

The breadth and bitterness of the partisan division explains why Trump is so unlikely to lose the support of his core voters in the current impeachment debate — it’s not some special magic of his own so much as the dislike, often revulsion, they feel toward the other side.

Indeed, the fact that, despite partisanship, a significant minority of Republicans currently say they find Trump’s conduct in the Ukraine scandal “troubling” — about one in five in the latest Fox News poll, for example — is a strong indicator of just how serious his problems are.

Not all partisan division is a bad thing. Just a couple of decades ago, a lot of Americans thought the two parties didn’t differ much. Only about a third of Americans saw real differences between Democrats and Republicans through much of the 1980s and ’90s and on into the early years of the current decade.

Voters need “a choice, not an echo,” the conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly famously declared half a century ago in an assault on liberal Republicans. Well, we got that. Today, “liberal Republican” is an oxymoron and fewer than one in 10 Americans think the two parties have “hardly any” difference.

Now, a large majority of Americans feel the difference has gone too far.

On both sides of the aisle, a large majority of Americans see partisan division as a problem: More than 70% say voters in both parties “not only disagree over plans and policies, but also cannot agree on the basic facts.” More than 80% see partisan division as a cause of concern.

But that concern doesn’t mean either side is suddenly about to lower tensions.

The two parties are not strictly mirror images of each other. By most measures, Republicans are somewhat more negative about Democrats than the other way around — 63% of Republicans see Democrats as “more unpatriotic” than the rest of the country, for example, and almost half of them see Democrats as lazier.

Democrats, in turn, see Republicans as “more closed-minded” than other Americans, with three-quarters of Democrats holding that view.

And Democrats are somewhat more open to compromise — at least in the abstract. Almost six in 10 say it’s important for their presidential candidates, if elected, to find common ground with Republicans on policies even if that means giving up some things Democrats really want; about four in 10 say they should push hard for things the party wants, even if that means less gets done.

Among Republicans, the split is more even, with slightly more saying Trump should push hard for things the GOP wants, even if that means less gets done.

But on both sides, the level of animosity — already high in 2016 — has grown during the Trump years. Americans who pay the most attention to politics have led the way. They are the most partisan. They’re also the most likely to express negative views about the other side.

And while the ranks of self-described independents have grown markedly in the last decade, that doesn’t represent a way out of the partisan divide. The vast majority of independents lean toward one party or the other, and those leaners are about as likely as partisans to express negative views of the other side. What makes them distinctive is that leaners are more likely to also express negative views about their own side, as well.

The Pew survey was conducted Sept. 3-15. It has a margin of error for its full sample of 1.5 percentage points in either direction.

ARRESTS BRING NEW TWIST TO IMPEACHMENT CASE

The Ukraine scandal — the focus of the impeachment case against Trump — continues to develop at startling speed. On Thursday, the case took what could prove to be a significant turn when two men who worked with Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, were arrested on campaign finance charges.

As Eli Stokols and Alexa Díaz wrote, the men, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were accused of several illegal acts, but the one that most directly connects them to the current case is that they allegedly provided campaign contributions to Pete Sessions, who at the time was a powerful Republican member of the House, to get him to help in a campaign to oust the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

She was ultimately removed from her post this spring, and House investigators want to know if that happened because she was opposing Giuliani’s efforts to get Ukraine to help Trump by announcing an investigation of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

In the meantime, a defiant White House says it won’t participate in what Trump’s White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, called an “unconstitutional” impeachment inquiry. In a lengthy letter, Cipollone said Trump should be allowed to cross-examine witnesses, receive transcripts of testimony, have access to evidence the House collects and have counsel present during questioning, Noah Bierman, Sarah Wire and Díaz reported.

Legal scholars say that strategy is on shaky constitutional grounds, David Savage reported, but as is usually the case with Trump, the legal arguments may be secondary to the political goal of rousing his base.

The moves took place just days after a second whistleblower emerged in the impeachment inquiry. As Laura King wrote, the lawyers who represent the initial whistleblower in the case said Sunday they now have “multiple” complainants.

Trump has tried to argue that during his fateful phone conversation with Ukraine’s president that sparked the impeachment inquiry, he was appropriately trying to battle corruption and that he has an “absolute right” to do so, Bierman reported. He also wrote about the millions of dollars that Trump’s children are taking in overseas even as he attacks Biden’s son.

What was Joe Biden’s actual connection with Ukraine? Tracy Wilkinson in Kyiv examined his actions as vice president.

One skirmish point in the House is over the refusal of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to hold a full vote on the House floor to open the impeachment inquiry. A vote of that sort took place in both the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment cases, but Pelosi notes there’s no rule requiring such a vote. One reason Pelosi doesn’t want a floor vote: It could open the way for Republicans to demand independent subpoena power, which they don’t currently have, Wire reported.

Democrats want to stop Republicans from hijacking the impeachment investigation by launching their own probes into the investigators. That’s already happened at the Justice Department, Del Wilber wrote.

LONG HISTORY OF WHISTLEBLOWERS

Whistleblowers are as American as apple pie, Laura King writes. The first U.S. whistleblower case dates to 1777 — before there was a Constitution — when 10 U.S. Navy sailors reported their commandant for brutal treatment of captured British sailors and won protection from the Continental Congress.

BIDEN CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT

After considerable hesitation, Biden joined most of the rest of the Democratic presidential field and called for Trump’s impeachment. Of Trump’s actions, he said, “It’s wrong. It’s un-American.”

Trump escalated his rhetoric saying in tweets Sunday that Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) committed “treason” and should be “impeached.”

Most votes in the House are already nailed down. Texas Rep. Will Hurd, a Republican and former CIA officer is an exception. That makes him one of the most keenly watched House members, Molly O’Toole wrote.

ECONOMIC TROUBLES

While impeachment gets all the headlines, a quieter development could endanger Trump’s reelection: U.S.
manufacturing is now officially in recession, Don Lee wrote. As measured by the Federal Reserve, manufacturing output shrank over two straight quarters this year. That’s the common definition of recession.

Because most of the U.S. economy involves services, not manufacturing, a recession in the factories may not have as much national impact as it might have a few decades ago. But it could still be critical in some important states.

Trump might get good news on a different economic front, however: Democrats are warming to Trump’s revised NAFTA trade deal after Mexico pledged labor reforms, Jennifer Haberkorn wrote.

THE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN

Seven years ago, Biden’s decision to publicly back same-sex marriage made major news, putting him briefly ahead of President Obama, who had not yet taken that step. This week, Democratic candidates held a televised forum on LGBTQ issues and vied to announce the most sweeping plans to reverse Trump’s rollback of LGBTQ rights, Michael Finnegan wrote.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein officially backed Biden for president, snubbing her fellow California Democrat, Sen. Kamala Harris, Melanie Mason reported.

Sen. Bernie Sanders set off a scramble by saying he would scale back campaigning after his heart attack, Finnegan reported. Sanders’ campaign spent much of the week trying to fend off rumors that he might drop out of the race.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren needs to connect with Latino voters. She has a plan for that, Mason and Matt Pearce reported. Whether it works remains to be seen.

JANE FONDA BACK IN D.C.

She’s 81 and launching a new activist campaign — this one on climate change. Jane Fonda talked with Evan Halper and Anna Phillips about why she is moving to Washington (for now).

A TOXIC LEGACY

Firefighting foam used at military bases has contaminated Californians’ drinking water, Phillips, David Cloud and Tony Barboza reported. No one knows how many people may be affected because the military does only limited testing off-base.

A CRISIS OF TRUMP’S MAKING

Trump’s abrupt announcement that had ordered U.S. troops to pull back in Syria, moving away from the border with Turkey, threatened chaos in the region and sparked a GOP revolt. The move essentially abandoned Syrian Kurds who have been U.S. allies to face Turkish advances alone.

As Doyle McManus wrote, the Trump Doctrine is allies can’t trust him.

LOGISTICS

That wraps up this week. Until next time, keep track of all the developments in national politics and the Trump administration on our Politics page and on Twitter @latimespolitics.

Send your comments, suggestions and news tips to [email protected].

If you like this newsletter, tell your friends to sign up.

[email protected]

This past week Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Trump spoke at a rally. Trump’s speech seemed familiar: Disparage Los Angeles (“trash heap”). Criticize Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass (“incompetent, and they paid troublemakers, agitators and insurrectionists”). Restate grievances about the 2020 election (“rigged and stolen”). Chide the crowd to support the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (“You better push your favorite congressmen”).

But this speech was different from his others. The location was Ft. Bragg in North Carolina — and the audience was mostly soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, the “All Americans.” Internal unit communications revealed soldiers at the rally were screened based on political leanings and physical appearance. “If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration,” the guidance advised, “and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out.”

So what followed was to be expected. A sea of young soldiers in uniform — selected for their preference for the president — cheering and clapping for partisan commentary. This obviously violates Defense Department regulations. Heck, it’s even spelled out in a handy Pentagon FAQ:

Q. Can I ever wear my uniform when I attend political events?

A. No; military members must refrain from participating in political activity while in military uniform in accordance with both DoDD 1344.10 and DoDI 1344.01. This prohibition applies to all Armed Forces members.

But what happened during Trump’s appearance at the Army base is worse than breaking regs. The commander in chief forced an important unit to choose sides. He broke the All Americans in two. In essence, his statement to the troops there was: “Those who like me and my politics, come to my rally. The rest of you — beat it.” (Maybe we should start calling them the “Some Americans.”)

Imagine what it was like the day after. The soldiers who chose not to attend wondered how their next rating would go. Some lieutenant from California worried if his commander now has a problem with where he’s from — and is checking whether he was at the rally. Maybe it’s better if he wasn’t, and he instead chose to abide by Defense regulations?

No matter which way you lean, that speech injected partisan acid into the 82nd Airborne. And it will drip down and corrode from the stars at the top to the lowest-ranking private.

Militaries require extraordinary cohesion to function in combat. For those of us who’ve chosen this profession, one thing is burned into our brains from that very first day our hair’s shorn off: We’re all we’ve got. There’s nobody else. When you are hundreds and thousands of miles away from everyone else you’ve ever known, and you’re there for weeks and months and a year, you realize just how important the person next to you is, regardless of where they’ve come from, who their parents are, or whether their community votes red or blue.

Fighting units are like five separate fingers that form a fist. Partisan acid burns and weakens our fist.

Then there are the indirect effects. This speech damaged the military’s standing with a large swath of America. The image of soldiers cheering the partisan applause lines of a commander in chief who just sent thousands of troops to Los Angeles over the state’s objections? Not a good look.

These optics risk ruining the military’s trust with roughly half of America. The military is the last remaining federal institution that a majority of Americans trust “a great deal.” But it’s been slipping since the last Trump administration and may fall under 50%. Yet the military requires firm trust to fund and fill critical needs.

That’s important because not everyone wants to serve in the military. Many would prefer not to think about the expected self-sacrifice, or the daily discomforts of military discipline. Moreover, not everyone is even able to serve in the military. Roughly three-quarters of young Americans can’t qualify.

What if someone who would have been the next Mike Mullen — Los Angeles native, Navy admiral and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs — gets turned off by this rally and opts against the Naval Academy?

Then zoom out a little. What if much of California takes offense at this speech, not to mention at the soldiers and Marines so recently forced upon the local and state governments?

California hosts more active-duty troops than any other state — by a wide margin. It’s also the biggest donor state in the country, contributing $83 billion more to the federal government than it receives. The bases and other strategic locations up and down the Pacific Coast are beyond value. California is America’s strong right arm.

To sever California’s support for the military is simply unthinkable. It just can’t happen. We’ve got to fix this.

The first fix is simple. Hold troops to the accepted standards. Hegseth’s most recent book argued that the Defense Department has “an integrity and accountability problem.” Here’s the secretary’s chance to show America he stands for standards.

But we know mistakes happen, and this could become a powerful teachable moment: When the commander in chief orders troops to such an event, the only acceptable demeanor is the stone cold silence the generals and admirals of the Joint Chiefs display at the State of the Union, regardless of their politics and regardless of what the president is saying. Just a few years ago, two Marines in a similarly awful situation did just this right thing.

A further fix calls for more individuals to act: The roughly 7,500 retired generals and admirals in America need to speak up. The military profession’s nonpartisan ethic is at a breaking point. They know the old military saying: When you spot something substandard, and you fail to correct it, then you’ve just set a new standard.

The reason many of these retired senior officers often don’t speak out is their fear that defending neutrality risks having a political impact. Yet their continued silence carries a grave institutional effect — the slow-motion suicide of the profession that gave them their stars.

The president mentioned Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee in his speech, and it’s too bad his speechwriter didn’t include a certain anecdote that would’ve fit the occasion. When the Civil War was over and terms were being agreed upon at Appomattox Court House, Lee noticed Col. Ely Parker, a Tonawanda Seneca man serving on Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s staff. Lee quipped, “I am glad to see one real American here.”

To which Parker replied, “We are all Americans.” Since that very moment, we’ve been one country and one Army, All Americans, indivisible and inseparable from society.

If only we can keep it.

ML Cavanaugh is the author of the forthcoming book “Best Scar Wins: How You Can Be More Than You Were Before.” @MLCavanaugh

Reporting from Washington — For those outside Washington, government institutions seem equally dysfunctional. Inside the Beltway, however, the Senate occupies a somewhat special place.

The upper chamber is often revered – especially by its own members — as a more thoughtful, deliberate and collaborative body, where respect for minority viewpoints is baked into cherished rules and precedents.

But one by one, those long-standing traditions that have served as a check against extreme legislation or appointments are being tossed aside amid growing partisanship and a closely divided government.

Rather than nudging senators to compromise, the rules are now a being used in a procedural arms race that threatens to erode the very culture and practice that made the Senate different than the majority-rules House.

“This is the latest manifestation of a changing and declining Senate,” said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution and the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

Trump made promises to blue-collar voters. Democrats plan to make sure he follows through »

“The polarization between the parties and the intensity of sentiment outside the Senate has already led to changes in norms and practices,” he said. “Our system is not well structured to operate in a period of intense polarization.”

The latest example came Wednesday when GOP lawmakers took the extraordinary step of changing committee rules to advance two of President Trump’s Cabinet nominees without any Democrats in attendance.

Democrats, revealing their own willingness to defy Senate niceties, had boycotted the votes on Steven Mnuchin as Treasury secretary and Rep. Tom Price as head of Health and Human Services as they sought more answers on the nominees’ records.

Now Trump would like to see other Senate rules scrapped to the ensure approval of his Supreme Court nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, whom Democrats had vowed to block even before his name was revealed.

Democrats are still stinging over Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal for most of last year to grant a vote for President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Supreme Court nominations have rarely been subjected to filibusters, but Democrats are talking about taking such a move against Gorsuch. In response, Republicans are considering changing Senate rules so only 51 votes are needed to end the delaying tactic, rather than the current 60. The move is seen as so severe it’s been dubbed the “nuclear option.”

“I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear,’ because that would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was caught up in the web,” Trump said Wednesday.

Democrats opened the door themselves in 2013 when they used the nuclear option to push through several of Obama’s judicial and executive nominations, which Republicans had been filibustering.

The final frontier in this procedural war could be ending the use of filibusters on ordinary legislation. That would means that bills — which typically require 60 votes to advance in the Senate — could be moved with a 51-vote simple majority. With Republicans currently holding 52 seats, it would relegate Democrats to bystanders in the Senate.

“What is the Senate if that’s gone?” asked one Senate aide. “It’s just the House.”

The Senate has long been a frustrating place. Its slow pace and cumbersome rules are nothing like the more rambunctious House, where the majority can quickly pass a legislative agenda.

But the founders designed the bicameral system with that unique difference — one chamber to swiftly answer the will of the people, the other for a more measured second look before sending bills on to the White House.

Only in the 20th century did senators create an option for ending a filibuster as a way to cut off prolonged debate.

It all sounds pretty archaic to an increasingly frustrated public that is reeling in an intensely partisan environment.

Trump’s election has only accelerated the pressure to end the civilities of the past. On the Republican side, tea party activists pressured Republicans to jam Obama’s agenda, even if that meant shutting down the government.

Now Democratic voters are marching in the streets to stop Trump, pressuring their party leaders to confront just as aggressively what many fear is a dangerous agenda.

“What we’re seeing now is that the base is more motivated than any of us have ever seen,” said Mark Stanley, spokesman for Demand Progress, a 2-million-member progressive group whose activists will be calling and emailing Democratic senators to oppose Gorsuch. It recently turned out 3,000 people at a Democratic senator’s town hall meeting in Rhode Island to protest his vote for Trump’s CIA director nominee.

“Especially in these unprecedented times we’re in, Democrats have to stick by their principles and do what their constituents are really asking for,” Stanley said.

Though both parties have contributed to the gridlock in the Senate, it was McConnell’s willingness to utilize the filibuster as an ordinary weapon in the Obama era — rather than the occasional cudgel — that is largely seen as having fueled today’s standoff.

McConnell has made it clear that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed even if Democrats mount a filibuster — all but declaring he will use the nuclear option to do so.

Trump and the GOP are charging forward with Obamacare repeal, but few are eager to follow »

Such a move would probably poison legislative operations in the Senate for the foreseeable future.

The prospect has so alarmed some Democrats that they may be willing to hold their nose and vote for Gorsuch to preserve the filibuster. Others are not so sure.

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, acknowledges that when he arrived in the Senate in 2013, he, too, was so quickly frustrated by the obstruction that he was willing to consider rules changes.

But the former governor vividly remembers a private meeting of the Democratic caucus when one of the older senators advised the newer arrivals about the importance of the Senate as the cooling body and urged them to think about the long-term ramifications of their actions.

“One of the things that surprise me about this place is that people do things and they expect it’s not going to have results four or five years from now,” King said. “I’ve come to realize the 60-vote majority requires some kind of bipartisan support which ultimately makes legislation better.”

[email protected]

@LisaMascaro

ALSO

Despite talk of GOP unity, Trump’s programs face fight from Republican budget hawks

‘Believe me’: People say Trump’s language is affecting political discourse ‘bigly’

Trump’s rise draws white supremacists into political mainstream: ‘I am winning,’ says David Duke

More coverage of Congress

Live coverage from the campaign trail