Understanding Congressional Bias through Texas
If you want to really grasp the bias in Congress, just take a look at Texas. President Trump, Governor Greg Abbott, and other state Republican leaders are actively reshaping the political landscape. There’s been talk about redistricting mid-term, typically waiting for the census every decade to update congressional maps based on population changes.
Both parties have played the gerrymandering game for years. But Texas Republicans have taken it a step further, pushing for mid-term district redraws more aggressively since 2003. This isn’t just a one-time strategy; it has happened multiple times.
I can see both sides here. I mean, I understand the Republicans’ motivations and the Democrats’ drive for retribution. Back in 2012, I was involved with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and let’s say I had a score to settle—specifically, eliminating some Republican seats in Texas. We considered rallying Democrats to act faster than the traditional redraws following the 2010 census. But ultimately, we chose not to retaliate against the Republicans, even though the temptation was there. It was more prudent to stick with the usual process leading into the 2012 election.
After the 2010 Census, we identified Illinois as a prime target for picking up seats, with a mix of eight Democrats and eleven Republicans in its House delegation. Governor Pat Quinn and the Democratic leaders there reimagined the districts, successfully creating three additional Democratic seats after the 2012 election.
This isn’t an isolated incident. Both parties have a history of crafting their own peculiar district arrangements. For instance, Pennsylvania’s old District 7 was intentionally drawn to protect Republican Rep. Patrick Meehan, looking almost cartoonish—literally resembling Disney characters.
In 2000, Arizona created a district that awkwardly twisted around the Colorado River, presumably to ease tensions between two tribes, including both Hopi and Navajo reservations.
Fast forward to 2022. Plans from New York Democrats aimed to expand one district into the Bronx, but that scheme backfired when a state judge intervened.
The over-complication of these districts has led to an increase in highly partisan areas, effectively diminishing opportunities for more competitive districts.
When I joined the council in 2001, there were 29 districts that leaned either way, barely fluctuating based on national trends. It was essential for incumbents to appeal to crossover voters. Bipartisanship felt like a vital strategy, not just a wishy-washy goal.
Today, however, the number of competitive districts has shrunk to just 16. Many districts are heavily red or blue, making it unlikely for House members to wake up thinking about losing a general election. Instead, they’re more preoccupied with the fear of being unseated by an extreme candidate in the primaries.
The political landscape has shifted, forcing lawmakers toward ideological extremes, while most Americans tend to lean more centrist. The divide is glaring; people are clustering in ideological bubbles, like districts influenced by Fox News or MSNBC, leaving little room for dissenting opinions.
Some states are attempting reforms. California and Arizona have independent committees for redistricting, while New York has established a bipartisan constituency board which tries to limit excessive gerrymandering. But here lies a dilemma. In politically dominated states, leaders often feel compelled to adhere to existing rules even if it hinders their potential advantage.
It’s been a common sentiment over the years that Democrats should mirror the GOP’s strategies. But historically, Democrats have taken a more principled route, aiming to write a fair redistricting code, despite the ongoing erosion of bipartisan collaboration.
The recent push for mid-term redistricting in Texas seems to have awakened new thinking among Democrats. Governors Gavin Newsom (California), Kathy Hochul (New York), and JB Pritzker (Illinois) are hinting at counter-strategies if Texas Republicans pursue their aggressive redraws. Yet, these efforts run into significant legal obstacles.
For Democrats, waiting for the next redistricting cycle isn’t a viable option anymore. The reality is that winning requires more than moral stands; it demands action. Until Republican lawmakers in key states witness their seats flipping, they may not recognize the extent to which gerrymandering destabilizes the entire political system.
In the long run, to revive bipartisanship, Democrats might have to adopt some of the rules that Texas Republicans have played by.
