The Republican party has pursued an insidious, multi-decade strategy to obtain and retain control over state and local governments well beyond what the legitimate democratic process would afford them. The Democrats are indeed late to the game, which leads to ideas that sound extreme (like the retirement age gambit), because they're trying to catch up all at once to decades of subtle moves. But in a consequentialist analysis, "suddenly" vs. "gradually" is not really a factor. The Republicans packed the courts first, and turnabout is fair play.
No, the Republicans did NOT pack the courts. That's a recurring Dem dream, never us. There were nine long ago, and there are nine now. Why did you say such a thing when you know it's the same number?
I was surprised to look this up and see you’re technically right. Merriam-Webster defines court packing as changing the size of the court. But, IMO, this is too narrow a definition. It ought to include any effort to affect the court’s membership for partisan or financial gain.
Refusing to seat (or even hold a hearing on) Merrick Garlan, but reversing course to seat Amy Comey Barrett under the same circumstances meets the definition of court packing as I set it out. And I don’t know what else you’d call it. Not fair play, for sure: it was more a might-makes-right scenario.
I understand Dems have had the dream of changing the number of justices - and even made the attempt under FDR - but that’s just one way to do the deed.
Nice post, but I don't think you can call the Garlan/Barrett thing court packing. Effective politics? But yes, it's a might-makes-right deal. So is this gerrymandering frenzy going on now. The question is, which side is going to end up more effective? ALLLL of everybody, even I believe our two Nates, supposed the two factions had simply blocked each other at about the same House percentages as before ----------------- but then came these amazing Court cases in the U.S.S.C. and the Virginia Supreme Court. Did Trump and his advisors plan this, know about this? Wild ride. Could be tears before bedtime, though.
I agree that it was not court packing. The republicans technically followed the rules. However, holding Scalia's seat open for 10 months and then rushing to fill RBG's seat was very unfair.
In light of that its easy to see why some people favor packing the courts. How else are we to re-establish balance?
I personally think its a bad idea though, because obviously this would turn into a flip flop scenario every time the party in control changes, and the whole court would be a joke.
I would much prefer to see the rules around putting new justices in the court modified so that both sides can agree that they are fair, at least in the long run.
Perhaps a new rule that the president gets to nominate a new justice during every odd year, and when an old justice retires or dies they do NOT get replaced. The total number would fluctuate from year to year, but we would at least have parity in the number put on the court per president.
Well, fairness ----- I don't think that concept is operative anymore, to use a term about truth from the Nixon administration. It used to be, but now politics is about whatever a faction can get away with.
Yes, balance. We don't have balance when one party is in the ascendence, like the decades of Dem rule during the FDR years and the '50s. I like your point about this situation flopping every time the other party gets on top. Which is exactly why --- so far!! --- the filibuster has not yet been cancelled. The Supreme Court was leftwing for decades; now we on the Right are getting our innings.
I don't think the number of justices can fluctuate because of the even number problem. There needs to be an odd number of justices or many cases would tie, and that's not what they are paid for: they are supposed to make a decision.
I am of the opinion that the "even number" problem is a fake problem. If an issue is so close that the supreme court ties then maybe our society isn't ready for it to be settled quite yet.
I haven't been following any strange scifi ideas like that ---- is that legally possible? Is that likely to happen? How can you force a bunch of state supreme court justices to retire suddenly? This does not sound like a plausible scenario to me.
How could you force half-a-dozen federal Supreme Court justices to retire? is that possible? Doesn't sound possible unless guns and heavy munitions are involved. And that's what we're trying to avoid, I thought.
It was mentioned in this article and in the news the past few days. They can change the state law specifying the state supreme court justice retirement age.
Yes, but there is a very specific reason for why they are doing this.
The most conservative juror on the court has their term ending in January. Well, it should be ending, which I'll come back to in a second.
Look at the rules for replacement, and then look at the make up of the Virginia state house.
Assume what realistically, based on the last election and the national mood (I won't ask you to buy into the reality of Virginia being very angry at Conservatives right now), and tell me what you think the odds are for their replacement being anything less liberal than AOC.
Now, for note, the two term limit of 12 years is a *traditional limit* that the court has *traditionally* held themselves to. Technically, there is no actual mechanism, just a agreement between the justices that has held for a lot longer than it should. But it's allowed each governor basically a single pick during a given term, with a few exceptions. Nice and fair to everyone and the people.
HOWEVER, there is talk that the current justice, D. Arthur Kelsey, who once upon a time was given his opening by a moderate judge who stepped down during a time of similar concerns to make sure the system was fair, may be feeling he doesn't need to follow Tradition and just stick around.
Realistically, the bill as proposed is a threat. Kelsey was making the moves expected of a retiring judge, then stopped about a year ago and started wringing his hands about retiring. The Democrats are sending a message: If tradition fails, we'll just replace everyone.
If Kelsey retires, I image the entire conversation will vanish. Which is actually the best solution to the issue.
Is it court packing? Absolutely. But it's court packing as a response to a backdoor court packing attempt, by selecting the windows of retirement so only one party get to choose justices, causing a artificial lean in the courts under the guise of neutrality. The Democrats are just being the less hypocritical party by flat out stating the intent.
Does that description sound like any other supreme court you can think of? *DEATH STARE IN LIBERTARIAN*
That was helpful! it's not court-packing, however, which has a specific historical meaning. FDR wanted the court packed with Democrat-appointed justices up to 15 total. (In fact, in four terms, he ended up appointing 8!) Lately, Democrats have mostly been talking about 13 Justices instead of 9, but higher numbers have been mentioned.
Fiddling with what party gets to appoint state supreme court justices depending on how they change mandatory retirement age ---- wow. We're having fun now -----
Compare California vote percentages that republicans get with the actual number of state and federal representatives (pre initiative of course) . Despite a supposed non partisan districting commission, there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn. It allows for a super majority, making California a one party state.
Completely agree. I’m a KY lawyer though and this is true. The court is surprisingly neutral, probably because you’re not allowed to run for judge as a partisan here. Someone tried two cycles ago and, while he wasn’t kicked off the ballot, he was disciplined and the voters hated him for it. His opponent/the incumbent won handily.
When I read Nate’s methodology for creating that map I was skeptical. But when I saw Kentucky as a tossup I thought “well, I guess the methodology was better than I thought.” I have to pay a lot of attention to Ohio and Indiana courts and those are correctly deep red.
Excellent. But why is my stomach in knots? Because your rational analysis in no way eases my fear that we’re not just the away team, but the home team is playing an entirely different game, and our captains (Schumer!) are inept. On a related subject. I reiterate my request. We in California need a strategy for the gubernatorial election now underway. Quick! Propose a plan to insure that two Republicans do not advance to the runoff. Thx.
Vote for Becerra. He is leading in the polls and is very well qualified. He might not be flashy, but that is OK. Flashy doesn't mean effective.
Steyer : billionaire trying to buy the biggest corner office he can, with no meaningful executive or government experience. If you don't like Becerra, a decent "Plan B" because there is still a chance for Becerra vs Steyer in November.
Mahan : Interesting on policy, but not going to get to a top two slot. Only 3 years as mayor of a tier 2 city (so only two years of actual budget and policies). Only in the list because three billionaires are funding him. San Jose should be a top tier city based on wealth, influence and population. If he fixes that he should be promoted.
Porter : No executive experience, same corner office psychology as Steyer. Has legislative experience, but is mostly an academic with an ego (is that redundant?).
It frustrates me to see comments like this. The problem is that you undermine your (valid) point that the left has anti-Semitism and anti-Wealth problems by prefacing them with a completely and obviously insane statement ("Democrats ... will commence ... a full Stalinist restoration"). Again, don't get me wrong, I agree with you that Democrats have issues with discouraging wealth creation, and also with silencing those who disagree with their worldview. And of course, Stalin's regime had these issues too. But that doesn't mean they are comparable: they were orders of magnitude worse in Stalin's regime. It is like comparing a leaking faucet to a full-on flood: both are bad, both are caused by the same elements, but they are not comparable.
I honestly feel foolish even having to explain this, it is so obvious, but I am just so tired of comments like this that push centrists away from sensible policies on the right by tying them to absurd claims about the left.
It always astonishes me that Democrats are alleged by some people to be against wealth creation, and yet the wealthiest states in the country are Democratic.
It is almost as though people who make that claim have absolutely no math or reasoning skills.
I would argue you are confusing correlation with causation.
Edit: I guess I would also add that I don't think all Democrat policies are anti-Wealth creation, nor that all Democrats are anti-Wealth creation, or even that Democrats as a whole have always been the more anti-Wealth creation party. However, what I would say is that a sizable portion of Democrats do today pursue policies that limit wealth creation, and that these Democrats have (at least recently) influenced policy negatively in this regard.
I would argue that you are claiming Democratic policies discourage wealth creation with no actual evidence.
The fact is that the weakest wealth creation economies in the country are in Republican controlled states.
[Edit based on your edit : evaluating a single policy item, or a subset, and claiming that it reflects the full impact of all the policy goals and implemented policies is severely flawed. Raising people out of poverty can in fact create wealth.]
This is a difficult road to go down: I could list many Democratic policies that discourage wealth creation (with actual evidence); you could then counter with many Republican policies that discourage wealth creation (because these certainly exist as well). I could also point to international comparisons that show the US to be much wealthier than the large majority of countries in the rest of the developed world, and note that the US has traditionally had governments that are much further to the right on than most of those in these other countries. You could counter by pointing to several specific examples of developed countries that are richer than the US and are traditionally more to the left, like Norway. The fact of the matter is, there are many reasons why some places are richer than others; politics plays an important role, but it is certainly not the only one, or even the most important one. (Again, this feels like an absurdly obvious statement to have to make, but you seem to be needing to hear it.) This makes comparisons like the one you are making not very convincing. I guess the bottom line is: I concede that I likely don't have the evidence to convince you. However, I also think it is rather silly of you to claim that I must have no reasoning skills if I disagree with you.
Ah, but you didn't actually disagree with me, and you clearly have thought about these issues, unlike the first comment.
And in case you missed my edit above, my point was that wealth transfer does not necessarily discourage wealth creation.
So my counter to points about Democratic policies that seem to discourage wealth creation would be to point out other policies that Democrats advance that encourage wealth creation.
The state level comparison is just about the proof in the pudding.
The wealthiest Republican states are either extractive or retirement communities. That is hardly a return on investment based on governmental economic policy.
Yours is a distinction without a difference. Because state x is controlled by Dems and is among the wealthiest states does not mean the two are correlated. Maybe the Republicans in blue states are creating most of the wealth. Maybe not. Who controls governance is a non-factor.
If it is a non-factor, then the original statement is incorrect to claim that if the Democrats get in control there will be "massive wealth destruction".
It doesn't matter if the R citizens in D states are creating the wealth, it is clearly true that if Democratic policies destroy wealth they are pretty bad at it.
Of the 50 states + DC, D.C. is the wealthiest per capita. 4 of the top 10 wealthiest counties are in N. Virginia. This isn't necessarily a good thing as it speaks to the massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the consultant class. It is really hard to argue that the growth in D.C./NoVa is because of wealth creation rather than a growth in lobbying/consulting/government contracting tied to the post-9/11 growth of the federal government.
On that, state and local policy choices alone don't dictate wealth creation (or destruction). Natural advantages matter - CA will always benefit from a favorable climate and west coast ports. Economic growth depends on both a state's policies and its starting advantages.
I think the best two examples of states that lack those kinds of natural advantages, but have done a good job of business creation and individual wealth growth (while keeping cost of living relatively under control) are Colorado and Utah. I think both states rank in the top ten for median household income.
"completely and obviously insane statement ("Democrats ... will commence ... a full Stalinist restoration"). "
Calling anyone and everyone a fascist, once a tic of the far left, has become mainstream among Democrats. I think the ship has sailed on this kind of extremist language.
On the contrary, it was a tie. The Dems get to keep maps in the New England states that are so gerrymandered there are no Rep house members in those 40% Rep states.
VA gets to keep fair maps made by a non-partizan commission, and continue their noble cause of ending gerrymandering (good luck with that, sincerely).
Red states get to be as gerrymandered as NE and that might be worse after the next census, but policies have consequences, even for progressives.
He's talking about this round of redistricting, your "it's a tie" is referring to maps that were in place before this.
It's also disingenuous to say NE is the same as what's going on in the South. Look at the county voting maps in those states, you'd have to gerrymander them the opposite direction to get Republicans more than a seat or two. Rural/exurban white voters there are weird, they aren't as conservative as they are in the rest of the country.
The "New England is a Dem gerrymander" thing has also always been based on ignoring some key facts:
1. Vermont has only one seat.
2. Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island only have two each.
So Congressional gerrymandering is actually pretty tough in those states (literally impossible in VT). There aren't a lot of options, and Maine's 2nd district often elects Republicans anyway. So I guess this all boils down to Massachusetts and Connecticut? As far as I know, most analysis of the populations in those states indicates that it's just very hard to draw a Republican-majority district. They aren't concentrated enough anywhere to make up a real majority.
Mass and Conn have 18 electoral votes between them. With GOP representing approx 40% of the folks who vote, no one can tell me that it's fair that the ratio of Congress/Senate is Dems 18, GOP 0. Yes, I know there are red states with the same concentration. That's not fair either.
It's just hard to draw a DISTRICT in those states where there are enough Republicans to make a majority. They are too thinly spread. Yes, it's a weird circumstance but that's kind of how it is.
I think what you really want is multi-member districts and proportional representation (which I would support as well, but it would take a lot of changes).
That's the whole purpose of gerrymandering. Other states such as Illinois have managed to skew the "common" out of "sense" to achieve partisan goals. Such extreme gerrymandering could be utilized to achieve more fair outcomes. See my reply to CJ above.
So basically to get any Republican districts in MA you'd have to do an extreme pro-Republican gerrymander. I don't know why anyone would expect that to happen.
That reach from one of the reddest parts of the state into one of the bluest.
Politicians are flexible. If there were a mildly swing, 52-48 D-R district (easy result drawing blind in Dave's Redistricting), the right Republican candidate would shape their career to the district. You can easily come up with multiple 55-45 D-R districts just drawing districts at the city level, no precinct finagling at all.
As it is, the MA Democratic Party has successfully murdered the MA GOP, making any political career as a Republican in that state nonviable and preventing the formation of a more liberal state Republican party that could actually win. If being a Republican in Massachusetts means never holding an office above powerless state legislator, you might as well just be a moderate Democrat.
The fact that so many people think the "it's just geography LOL" retort to right wing complaints about New England shows anything but partisan self interest is frustrating.
MA-04 is how you could draw a GOP seat. I agree that by taking Fall River area and curving it almost into Cambridge, you make sure the conservative votes won't matter. A GOP seat could be drawn by taking Fall River and have that be the Western edge of a cape cod seat. That seat would be very swingy because of how p-town and that end of the cape votes. It would at least give the MA GOP a competitive seat.
NE is a bad example of a D gerrymander (use IL as your example republicans). For all the reasons you say. It is like saying that ID/MT/WY/ND/SD are gerrymandered for republicans. Not really.
CT you could draw a GOP seat. Cut the pincer arms off CT-01 so it is cored to Hartford. Have CT-03 lose the North Haven/Wallingford areas. Take those areas from CT-03 and combine them with the Bristol/Southington area. That district would probably be like a 53/47 R/D split.
MA is tougher. A GOP seat would probably have to be centered on Fall River and then instead of going north like the current MA-04, you pick up Middleborough and as much of the cape as you can while keeping the seat 50+1% GOP. You probably need a thin line from like Quincy out to P-town to make sure the places at the end of the cape don't tilt the district blue. Otherwise, there isn't a natural base of GOP support in MA. Western MA gets drown by Springfield and north of Boston will get drown by Lowell. GOP votes in MA are too dispersed to really make it easy to draw that district.
"the Supreme Court’s Callais decision weakened the Voting Rights Act" is a nakedly partisan framing. You could equally well say that Callais strengthened the Constitution. But if you were interested in accuracy rather than partisan scoring, you'd say it narrowed section 2's application to redistricting, or altered the standard for race-conscious districting.
More subtly, it's a partisan framing to say the Court favors Republicans in redistricting. Shelby County, Rucho, Brnovich and Callais uphold a consistent legal framework: skepticism of race as a redistricting input, skepticism of federal judicial supervision of state political processes and textualism about what the VRA actually requires as opposed to what it has come to stand for. None of those are partisan principles, each of them could favor Democrats in some cases. And none were invented recently for redistricting fights, all are long-standing Federalist Society views about all issues.
Rather than appointing more partisan state judges, I think Democrats should look back to when they had the advantage of a coherent judicial philosophy that could establish strong bodies of law--the legal process school that transformed the US justice system from the 1950s to the 1970s and underpinned the civil rights movement. This was a philosophy that appealed to lawyers, and won hearts and minds in law school. It could be applied to actual cases as well as overarching issues. It was a constraint--it didn't alway give the progressive or Democratic answer in all cases--but it was far more influential than modern progressive legal theories like democracy-and-voting-rights or purposivism. Those are goals rather than toolkits.
If you tell me a judge is a Federalist Society member, I can predict many of her decisions accurately, without knowing anything about the parties involved, only the legal issues. Calling it "Calvinball" is a slander. Sure, many judges lean one way or the other depending on the parties, but Federalist judges are far more predictable from legal principles than political ones. If you tell me a judge clerked for Brennan and is active in the American Constitution Society, I'll predict his decisions based on politics, not law.
It is a matter of fact that the decision weakened the VRA.
You might think that is OK, or even good, but if you look at the legislative and implementation history, those goals are harder now.
"What about the Constitution" is a matter of interpretation. As your last paragraph makes clear, your "law" vs "politics" perspective is a matter of personal opinion about those terms.
The underlying issue in Callais is that the Constitution forbids race-based districting, and the VRA requires it. So any decision that weakens one necessarily strengthens the other. My point is to mention one without the other is partisan.
The trouble with partisan framings is they are inexact. That's why I prefer the more specific, "narrowed section 2 of the VRA." There are lots of ways to weaken the VRA, narrowing section 2 is only one of them. And narrowing section 2 necessarily gives more scope to the 14th amendment.
It's not just semantic. "Weakened the VRA" suggests that you can predict future Supreme Court decisions will go further against the VRA. "Narrowed section 2" carries no similar prediction. You would be wiser to predict the court will be skeptical of using race in redistricting--either to get more or fewer minority-majority districts--less willing to intervene in state election management--whether by Republicans or Democrats--and more inclined to literal interpretations of the words of the VRA--which does help Republicans as progressives have imbued the Act with more than was written or meant at the time it was passed.
No, I didn't think that. When you say your views are a matter of fact but Aaron's are just an opoinion, I clarified for you that your view of the VA Court's decision is very much an opinion and not a "matter of fact." You're welcome.
So you are of the opinion that the Supreme Court decision was aligned with the original intentions of the people who wrote and voted for the VRA?
That would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Edit ...
Oh, and as a clarifying point, when I put "What about the Constitution" in quotes it was because I was referring to a specific part of the comment I was replying to. Perhaps that will help you understand my point.
I see. So you're saying that the framers of the VRA intended to have districts that are cutouts specifically for minority populations? Because I was under the impression that the VRA was created (heroically) in specific response to poll taxes, literacy tests, and intimidation of minority voters. You otoh, seem to believe they intended to have special cutout, majority-minority districts. Also of note is your originalist view of the VRA. I would wager a great deal that you would not apply originalism to for example, the US Constitution.
The court bopped them on the nose for rushing procedure and skipping the time frame. Some of the judges in various forms complained about various parts, but did not cite them in the judgement.
For note, in January the most conservative juror of the Virginia Supreme Court is leaving. They will likely rerun it then.
And for note, the supreme court run currently in the works, btw, is attempting to take advantage of the *Ohio 2022* decision where a map that was deemed unconstitutional was allowed for a single election because it was too late to do otherwise. Which is also basically what the logic was for the Virginia court rejecting the first vote by the state houses on the redistricting, saying that it was happening during not before the election because of early voting, therefore it couldn't count.
Realistically, this is costing the Democrats 1 to 3 seats in this election. I think 1 to 2 personally, but that's my read as a outsider looking into the rar-rar-rar of the major parties.
But the signs are that despite the panic and hysteria, the Democrats will have this in place by 2028 or 2030, the latter of which is the election which they would really need it in line for.
Privately, that's kinda WHY I think they are panicking. If the Democrats frame this as a 'We must use it to counter the Republican Gerrymanders' and tear down the independent commissions they built up, it puts them about even for the redistricting years.
If they assume that they can use Trump as the Republican Jimmy Carter, which seem likely at this point, that would lock them into a slow burn plan like similar to the Republicans recovering in the 80s and 90s from the Nixon years.
A good 2030 map for the democrats means that they get a huge bump in the census redistricting, which despite the talk here is expecting to be mostly a draw for the Democrats and republican states (mostly being the key word).
It'll be down to who controls which state houses in 2030 to determine who 'wins' the census.
Can't agree that dems will win the census redistricting. I read that the population is flowing from blue states to red as fast as people can book a moving van, since Democrats are so eager to punish success and tax anyone successful and give all the money to the failures.
Moving, yes, and in large looking numbers. But moving from big states to big states in 30k values *Just after* the states have dropped or gained a peg, and ignoring the movements to Maine and some of the smaller blue states, and the vast slow down in those moves in general is ignoring the scale needed for states to gain seats. Scale matters here.
In summary, the values are too small and are shrinking compared to what is needed for a vast upswell in seats. The republicans are looking at what averages to a 2 seat gain, 4 or 6 maybe (which is really 1 to 3 seats changing hands)... but that's only if the districts are similar to how it is currently. Georgia or Maine goes more blue? All those gains could be erased by a blue legislature. Or, worse, they might have to be given back by the conservatives to ensure they don't lose their majorities.
See, before this Gerrymandering craze, people were more focused on the 2030 census allowing for more *safe* seats previously, but that would require giving the Dems a single seat in the states that just removed them to strengthen the seats that are conservative. This is called district packing, and it's been the key tool for the conservatives keeping seats during bad years. Trump just undid that, so all those would be gains are basically already factored in.
Instead, to keep the new seat count, the Republicans would need to give democrats districts and pack those dems in... which they had been doing but toss those out to try and cut their pieces of pie just a little thiner.
If Texas starts getting a purple streak at the state level, which is a real risk with the blue state immigration, Corpus Christi's water problem, and the land seizures in the name of Data Centers? Suddenly all those gains are erased in a single moment. Just like happened to the Democrats in the 80s and 90s.
I'm not enough of an expert in this, but it does seem to me that everyone doing gerrymandering is playing with fire in that they are removing more safe districts to try creating more red or blue-leaning districts. That seems like a plan that can backfire pretty quickly if the population changes or the usual political coalitions (based on income, race, education, etc.) shift again as they have done before.
That would be correct. 1894 was the election that killed the big Gerrymander for more than a few generations, leading to smaller, more stable districts and the 'quiet gerrymander' years where states just didn't change things at all, which meant some districts were very small within states and new cities were screwed.
But I'd rather be the Democrats than the Republicans right now with doing a big Gerrymander, for reasons that are more about direction and breathing space to Gerrymander. The Republicans have, for the most part, had 40 years of building bulwarks, which kept their counts in a very specific range and their local offices very well planned. The Democrats haven't.
The reality is, the Democrats have very little to lose here. They have more room to build districts that are more stable, and they have more room to grow in the local level at a time where incumbents are generally disliked. Entering at that level, in a 4 year period likely to be favorable to them, and going hard on a opponent that is giving up the high ground for more territory on paper makes sense. It's risky, but at this point there's more risk from being seen as a punching back for them.
District packing! That's very interesting; I hadn't heard that term. Yes, I can see Trump just undid that -- there's been a lot of talking around that point in the media. "[K]ey tool for the conservatives keeping seats during bad years." Nice post, very informative. Could be an uh-oh for my side.
And yet another way of characterizing these events is your thesis gave insufficient consideration to the role of Democrats who failed to follow prescribed referenda procedures in Virginia?
California Prop 187 on 1994, and the resulting Republican rhetoric is instructive.
A large increase on Hispanic voter turnout combined with a dramatic shift in the direction of the Democratic party has obliterated the Republican party in California.
Trump's approval rating in the Hispanic community has crashed, and a lot of the polls don't include Spanish language support.
I volunteered eagerly for the Yes side in Virginia and I don't regret a minute of it (nothing like canvassing in the spring and getting fresh air), but thanks so much for your smart downplaying of the "fire everyone" Downballot idea in Virginia, which to begin with would not even have worked. Great analysis yesterday (Monday) in the Cardinal News: "Should Democrats fire the Virginia Supreme Court that ruled against them? 8 things to know about an idea making the rounds": https://cardinalnews.org/2026/05/11/should-democrats-fire-the-virginia-supreme-court-that-ruled-against-them-8-things-to-know-about-an-idea-making-the-rounds/
Note that point 1 of the 8 points is entitled "This is not a serious proposal." and begins "It's not me saying that, it's the calendar" and it goes on pretty logically from there.
One other Virginia-related note to add to your thinking -- Virginia's Supreme Court will be changing next year. It just takes a little longer to move along to match our state elections. That's on purpose, I think, to avoid overly abrupt changes. The 7 judges are appointed by the General Assembly on a staggered basis. One of the leading lights of the majority in the 4-3 decision has his term end next year. The General Assembly will appoint his replacement, who I'm guessing would probably have voted the opposite way. After that we'll have the equivalent of a "3-4" court, if you want to put it in raw terms, though very few of the little-known Virginia Supreme Court's cases are so partisan and they normally are all well regarded. I still can't believe Downballot was ready to fire the first Black female chief justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, either.
The complacency risk you identify cuts deeper than redistricting. The 2022 dynamic you describe — modest Democratic success convincing many elites that everything was fundamentally fine — already seems to be reappearing in early 2028 assumptions, where donor enthusiasm risks substituting for actual electability analysis.
The more analytically interesting question — which last week’s Michigan result sharpens considerably — is whether the special-election overperformance is candidate-type dependent rather than simply environment dependent.
Chedrick Greene — Marine veteran, fire captain, union-backed candidate — won a roughly Harris +0.4 district by nearly 20 points. That’s not just generic wave behavior. It raises the possibility that a specific candidate profile is outperforming the environment itself.
If these overperformances correlate more strongly with competence-profile, kitchen-table candidates than with activist-branded candidates — and recent races in places like Michigan, Louisiana, and Florida may suggest they do — then the real Democratic bottleneck for 2028 may not be the general-election environment. It may be whether primary incentives produce the type of candidate swing-state voters are currently rewarding.
Whitmer and Shapiro arguably represent the clearest proof-of-concept for that model in the two states most likely to decide the presidency, even while much of the donor class remains focused elsewhere.
Neither Whitmer nor Shapiro has a chance, IMO. Whitmer was the Covid Archvillain governor: she's the dork who forbade people to buy vegetable garden seeds in her state! I have NEVER forgiven that (dedicated gardener here) and don't plan to. Horrible woman. And also, she's a woman: the fundamentals for our sex are not currently looking favorable after losses by Hillary and Harris; I think Nate had a piece touching on that, IIRC. As for Shapiro, what with the war going on and the constant terrorism against Jews all around the world increasing, including here, and the continuing riots against Jews in New York and the colleges barely able to stop them ----- I'd say observant Shapiro would be a rash choice by the Dems for president. Unlikely. Unless they want to lose. I don't like that, but I think it's so.
I think the core strategic tension here is that what works in a Democratic primary may not map cleanly onto what works in the Electoral College.
Newsom may be exceptionally well-positioned for the invisible primary — donors, media, activist comfort, institutional support — but those strengths are not necessarily the same traits that maximize performance in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin.
That’s why Whitmer, Shapiro, Beshear, and even Greene in Michigan are analytically interesting. They’re not just winning as Democrats; they appear to be overperforming with exactly the kinds of persuadable swing-state voters Democrats have struggled with nationally.
Whitmer’s 2022 reelection is especially notable here. Michigan voters had every opportunity to punish her for Covid-era grievances and instead gave her a double-digit win in a major swing state. That doesn’t erase the backlash, but it does suggest candidate profile and perceived competence can outweigh it.
On the gender question specifically: I agree the consecutive losses of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris created a real perception problem for Democrats. But I’m not convinced that automatically translates into a permanent ceiling for every female candidate. Candidate profile matters. Whitmer’s political identity is much more tied to executive competence and swing-state governance than to national ideological polarization.
There’s also a generational component that may matter over time. The electorate of 2028 will not be identical to the electorates of 2016 or 2024. Younger generations generally carry different assumptions about women in executive leadership than older cohorts did, and each cycle gradually changes the composition of the electorate and the institutions surrounding it.
Likewise, Beshear winning three statewide races in a Trump+30 Kentucky and Shapiro’s broad crossover appeal in Pennsylvania both point toward a similar pattern: voters rewarding competence-profile, kitchen-table candidates over more nationalized or ideological brands.
The danger for Democrats is mistaking primary fluency for general-election coalition expansion. The key 2028 question may not be “Who most excites the Democratic coalition?” but “Which candidate profile consistently adds votes in the states that actually decide the presidency?”
Suppose we pass a constitutional amendment that says each state's congressional districts will be determined by longitude or latitude once a decade, rotating every census. And electors would be selected by two state-wide elected electors, and one electoral for each electoral district. Where electoral districts are drawn once a decade following the census but are the opposite (latitude or longitude of the congressional district.
How would this impact the red/blue split in the House? WH campaigns might become more nationalized. Swing states would matter less but swing districts around the country would matter more, which I think would be a good thing.
Are you not forgetting maybe the biggest point of all?
Politics will only get through to 20% of the population, and 19% have already picked dedicated sides. That 1% is comprised only of neoliberal gay men and their sub-stack audience.
What talks is finances. Did your pocketbook feel good?
What Trump has done is set forth 4 dollar gar prices as people drive to the polls in November. 5-10-20 seats to the republicans by gerrymandering, I honestly don't care. It's gonna be a BLUEEEEEEEE Tsunami this November.
Maybe I am naïve and 24 (keep in mind I was rooting for Romney at 10 years old and read the Signal and the noise at 12, so I have been following elections for 4 presidential cycles) But...
We have never had this financial situation going into a midterms. We are talking Jimmy Carter level anger, directed at an establishment that has 110% culpability, that just two years ago ran on "INFLATION INFATION INFLATION... oh and deport the illegals"
Even my fox news watching grandparents thought the killing of two people in Minnesota was appalling. But most of all, the gas prices have proven all their arguments wrong. I got them to promise gas wouldn't be over 4 dollars.
Once it got over 4 dollars, my grandfather started watching MS Now. Always Brett Baier, The Five and Gutfeld! with Sunday mourning's for one hours of CNN. He still watches all three Fox News shows but now he watches Velshi and even Rachel Maddow. I told him he didn't have to watch her, no liberal watches her, you don't have to do that.
4 dollar gas prices, yeah I am betting on Dems to win close to 300 seats.
The Republican party has pursued an insidious, multi-decade strategy to obtain and retain control over state and local governments well beyond what the legitimate democratic process would afford them. The Democrats are indeed late to the game, which leads to ideas that sound extreme (like the retirement age gambit), because they're trying to catch up all at once to decades of subtle moves. But in a consequentialist analysis, "suddenly" vs. "gradually" is not really a factor. The Republicans packed the courts first, and turnabout is fair play.
No, the Republicans did NOT pack the courts. That's a recurring Dem dream, never us. There were nine long ago, and there are nine now. Why did you say such a thing when you know it's the same number?
I was surprised to look this up and see you’re technically right. Merriam-Webster defines court packing as changing the size of the court. But, IMO, this is too narrow a definition. It ought to include any effort to affect the court’s membership for partisan or financial gain.
Refusing to seat (or even hold a hearing on) Merrick Garlan, but reversing course to seat Amy Comey Barrett under the same circumstances meets the definition of court packing as I set it out. And I don’t know what else you’d call it. Not fair play, for sure: it was more a might-makes-right scenario.
I understand Dems have had the dream of changing the number of justices - and even made the attempt under FDR - but that’s just one way to do the deed.
All IMO of course.
Nice post, but I don't think you can call the Garlan/Barrett thing court packing. Effective politics? But yes, it's a might-makes-right deal. So is this gerrymandering frenzy going on now. The question is, which side is going to end up more effective? ALLLL of everybody, even I believe our two Nates, supposed the two factions had simply blocked each other at about the same House percentages as before ----------------- but then came these amazing Court cases in the U.S.S.C. and the Virginia Supreme Court. Did Trump and his advisors plan this, know about this? Wild ride. Could be tears before bedtime, though.
I agree that it was not court packing. The republicans technically followed the rules. However, holding Scalia's seat open for 10 months and then rushing to fill RBG's seat was very unfair.
In light of that its easy to see why some people favor packing the courts. How else are we to re-establish balance?
I personally think its a bad idea though, because obviously this would turn into a flip flop scenario every time the party in control changes, and the whole court would be a joke.
I would much prefer to see the rules around putting new justices in the court modified so that both sides can agree that they are fair, at least in the long run.
Perhaps a new rule that the president gets to nominate a new justice during every odd year, and when an old justice retires or dies they do NOT get replaced. The total number would fluctuate from year to year, but we would at least have parity in the number put on the court per president.
Well, fairness ----- I don't think that concept is operative anymore, to use a term about truth from the Nixon administration. It used to be, but now politics is about whatever a faction can get away with.
Yes, balance. We don't have balance when one party is in the ascendence, like the decades of Dem rule during the FDR years and the '50s. I like your point about this situation flopping every time the other party gets on top. Which is exactly why --- so far!! --- the filibuster has not yet been cancelled. The Supreme Court was leftwing for decades; now we on the Right are getting our innings.
I don't think the number of justices can fluctuate because of the even number problem. There needs to be an odd number of justices or many cases would tie, and that's not what they are paid for: they are supposed to make a decision.
I am of the opinion that the "even number" problem is a fake problem. If an issue is so close that the supreme court ties then maybe our society isn't ready for it to be settled quite yet.
And the Garland delay was an in kind response to Harry Reid's nuking of the filibuster rule. And on it goes...
So if the Democrats in Virginia force N justices to retire and appoint N new justices, that won't be court packing either, right?
I haven't been following any strange scifi ideas like that ---- is that legally possible? Is that likely to happen? How can you force a bunch of state supreme court justices to retire suddenly? This does not sound like a plausible scenario to me.
How could you force half-a-dozen federal Supreme Court justices to retire? is that possible? Doesn't sound possible unless guns and heavy munitions are involved. And that's what we're trying to avoid, I thought.
It was mentioned in this article and in the news the past few days. They can change the state law specifying the state supreme court justice retirement age.
Yes, but there is a very specific reason for why they are doing this.
The most conservative juror on the court has their term ending in January. Well, it should be ending, which I'll come back to in a second.
Look at the rules for replacement, and then look at the make up of the Virginia state house.
Assume what realistically, based on the last election and the national mood (I won't ask you to buy into the reality of Virginia being very angry at Conservatives right now), and tell me what you think the odds are for their replacement being anything less liberal than AOC.
Now, for note, the two term limit of 12 years is a *traditional limit* that the court has *traditionally* held themselves to. Technically, there is no actual mechanism, just a agreement between the justices that has held for a lot longer than it should. But it's allowed each governor basically a single pick during a given term, with a few exceptions. Nice and fair to everyone and the people.
HOWEVER, there is talk that the current justice, D. Arthur Kelsey, who once upon a time was given his opening by a moderate judge who stepped down during a time of similar concerns to make sure the system was fair, may be feeling he doesn't need to follow Tradition and just stick around.
Realistically, the bill as proposed is a threat. Kelsey was making the moves expected of a retiring judge, then stopped about a year ago and started wringing his hands about retiring. The Democrats are sending a message: If tradition fails, we'll just replace everyone.
If Kelsey retires, I image the entire conversation will vanish. Which is actually the best solution to the issue.
Is it court packing? Absolutely. But it's court packing as a response to a backdoor court packing attempt, by selecting the windows of retirement so only one party get to choose justices, causing a artificial lean in the courts under the guise of neutrality. The Democrats are just being the less hypocritical party by flat out stating the intent.
Does that description sound like any other supreme court you can think of? *DEATH STARE IN LIBERTARIAN*
That was helpful! it's not court-packing, however, which has a specific historical meaning. FDR wanted the court packed with Democrat-appointed justices up to 15 total. (In fact, in four terms, he ended up appointing 8!) Lately, Democrats have mostly been talking about 13 Justices instead of 9, but higher numbers have been mentioned.
Fiddling with what party gets to appoint state supreme court justices depending on how they change mandatory retirement age ---- wow. We're having fun now -----
Compare California vote percentages that republicans get with the actual number of state and federal representatives (pre initiative of course) . Despite a supposed non partisan districting commission, there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn. It allows for a super majority, making California a one party state.
Y
It's weird to see Kentucky in any kind of "toss up" category, even one as esoteric maybe as "State Supreme Court Partisan Ideology".
Completely agree. I’m a KY lawyer though and this is true. The court is surprisingly neutral, probably because you’re not allowed to run for judge as a partisan here. Someone tried two cycles ago and, while he wasn’t kicked off the ballot, he was disciplined and the voters hated him for it. His opponent/the incumbent won handily.
When I read Nate’s methodology for creating that map I was skeptical. But when I saw Kentucky as a tossup I thought “well, I guess the methodology was better than I thought.” I have to pay a lot of attention to Ohio and Indiana courts and those are correctly deep red.
Excellent. But why is my stomach in knots? Because your rational analysis in no way eases my fear that we’re not just the away team, but the home team is playing an entirely different game, and our captains (Schumer!) are inept. On a related subject. I reiterate my request. We in California need a strategy for the gubernatorial election now underway. Quick! Propose a plan to insure that two Republicans do not advance to the runoff. Thx.
Re. California :
Vote for Becerra. He is leading in the polls and is very well qualified. He might not be flashy, but that is OK. Flashy doesn't mean effective.
Steyer : billionaire trying to buy the biggest corner office he can, with no meaningful executive or government experience. If you don't like Becerra, a decent "Plan B" because there is still a chance for Becerra vs Steyer in November.
Mahan : Interesting on policy, but not going to get to a top two slot. Only 3 years as mayor of a tier 2 city (so only two years of actual budget and policies). Only in the list because three billionaires are funding him. San Jose should be a top tier city based on wealth, influence and population. If he fixes that he should be promoted.
Porter : No executive experience, same corner office psychology as Steyer. Has legislative experience, but is mostly an academic with an ego (is that redundant?).
Democrats if ever empowered again federally will commence with a full Stalinist restoration filled with anti-Semitism and massive wealth destruction.
So why is your piece tinged sadness?
It frustrates me to see comments like this. The problem is that you undermine your (valid) point that the left has anti-Semitism and anti-Wealth problems by prefacing them with a completely and obviously insane statement ("Democrats ... will commence ... a full Stalinist restoration"). Again, don't get me wrong, I agree with you that Democrats have issues with discouraging wealth creation, and also with silencing those who disagree with their worldview. And of course, Stalin's regime had these issues too. But that doesn't mean they are comparable: they were orders of magnitude worse in Stalin's regime. It is like comparing a leaking faucet to a full-on flood: both are bad, both are caused by the same elements, but they are not comparable.
I honestly feel foolish even having to explain this, it is so obvious, but I am just so tired of comments like this that push centrists away from sensible policies on the right by tying them to absurd claims about the left.
It always astonishes me that Democrats are alleged by some people to be against wealth creation, and yet the wealthiest states in the country are Democratic.
It is almost as though people who make that claim have absolutely no math or reasoning skills.
I would argue you are confusing correlation with causation.
Edit: I guess I would also add that I don't think all Democrat policies are anti-Wealth creation, nor that all Democrats are anti-Wealth creation, or even that Democrats as a whole have always been the more anti-Wealth creation party. However, what I would say is that a sizable portion of Democrats do today pursue policies that limit wealth creation, and that these Democrats have (at least recently) influenced policy negatively in this regard.
I would argue that you are claiming Democratic policies discourage wealth creation with no actual evidence.
The fact is that the weakest wealth creation economies in the country are in Republican controlled states.
[Edit based on your edit : evaluating a single policy item, or a subset, and claiming that it reflects the full impact of all the policy goals and implemented policies is severely flawed. Raising people out of poverty can in fact create wealth.]
This is a difficult road to go down: I could list many Democratic policies that discourage wealth creation (with actual evidence); you could then counter with many Republican policies that discourage wealth creation (because these certainly exist as well). I could also point to international comparisons that show the US to be much wealthier than the large majority of countries in the rest of the developed world, and note that the US has traditionally had governments that are much further to the right on than most of those in these other countries. You could counter by pointing to several specific examples of developed countries that are richer than the US and are traditionally more to the left, like Norway. The fact of the matter is, there are many reasons why some places are richer than others; politics plays an important role, but it is certainly not the only one, or even the most important one. (Again, this feels like an absurdly obvious statement to have to make, but you seem to be needing to hear it.) This makes comparisons like the one you are making not very convincing. I guess the bottom line is: I concede that I likely don't have the evidence to convince you. However, I also think it is rather silly of you to claim that I must have no reasoning skills if I disagree with you.
Ah, but you didn't actually disagree with me, and you clearly have thought about these issues, unlike the first comment.
And in case you missed my edit above, my point was that wealth transfer does not necessarily discourage wealth creation.
So my counter to points about Democratic policies that seem to discourage wealth creation would be to point out other policies that Democrats advance that encourage wealth creation.
The state level comparison is just about the proof in the pudding.
The wealthiest Republican states are either extractive or retirement communities. That is hardly a return on investment based on governmental economic policy.
Yours is a distinction without a difference. Because state x is controlled by Dems and is among the wealthiest states does not mean the two are correlated. Maybe the Republicans in blue states are creating most of the wealth. Maybe not. Who controls governance is a non-factor.
If it is a non-factor, then the original statement is incorrect to claim that if the Democrats get in control there will be "massive wealth destruction".
It doesn't matter if the R citizens in D states are creating the wealth, it is clearly true that if Democratic policies destroy wealth they are pretty bad at it.
Maybe they have enough skills to check against confounding variables before leaping to simplistic conclusions.
Sure - that must be it.
The fact that there are no Red states in the top 10 per capita by wealth must be because Republican policies are so good at creating wealth.
And the fact that the top Red states wouldn't even be where they are except for mineral extraction industry and retirement.
Go ahead - provide a few "confounding variables".
Off the top of my head, cities are richer on average than rural areas, and the former vote Democrat much more than the latter.
Does that explain why blue states are wealthier than red states? I don't know! But worth controlling for don't you think?
Controlling for the fact that Democrats are better at building and maintaining wealthy cities?
Yeah - that is a great idea.
Republican policies are great at creating wealth, as long as you ignore the people who are wealthy.
Of the 50 states + DC, D.C. is the wealthiest per capita. 4 of the top 10 wealthiest counties are in N. Virginia. This isn't necessarily a good thing as it speaks to the massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the consultant class. It is really hard to argue that the growth in D.C./NoVa is because of wealth creation rather than a growth in lobbying/consulting/government contracting tied to the post-9/11 growth of the federal government.
On that, state and local policy choices alone don't dictate wealth creation (or destruction). Natural advantages matter - CA will always benefit from a favorable climate and west coast ports. Economic growth depends on both a state's policies and its starting advantages.
I think the best two examples of states that lack those kinds of natural advantages, but have done a good job of business creation and individual wealth growth (while keeping cost of living relatively under control) are Colorado and Utah. I think both states rank in the top ten for median household income.
"completely and obviously insane statement ("Democrats ... will commence ... a full Stalinist restoration"). "
Calling anyone and everyone a fascist, once a tic of the far left, has become mainstream among Democrats. I think the ship has sailed on this kind of extremist language.
Citation needed.
On the contrary, it was a tie. The Dems get to keep maps in the New England states that are so gerrymandered there are no Rep house members in those 40% Rep states.
VA gets to keep fair maps made by a non-partizan commission, and continue their noble cause of ending gerrymandering (good luck with that, sincerely).
Red states get to be as gerrymandered as NE and that might be worse after the next census, but policies have consequences, even for progressives.
By "New England", do you mean like Massachusetts?
https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card?planId=recCUmeKhThrNstI9
Your intuition may not have a basis in mathematics.
Synthetic statistical measures don't always capture the phenomenon they purport to measure.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful."
I'll take documented statistical evaluations over intuition every day of the week.
Analytic objections to the Princeton methodology would be very interesting.
He's talking about this round of redistricting, your "it's a tie" is referring to maps that were in place before this.
It's also disingenuous to say NE is the same as what's going on in the South. Look at the county voting maps in those states, you'd have to gerrymander them the opposite direction to get Republicans more than a seat or two. Rural/exurban white voters there are weird, they aren't as conservative as they are in the rest of the country.
The "New England is a Dem gerrymander" thing has also always been based on ignoring some key facts:
1. Vermont has only one seat.
2. Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island only have two each.
So Congressional gerrymandering is actually pretty tough in those states (literally impossible in VT). There aren't a lot of options, and Maine's 2nd district often elects Republicans anyway. So I guess this all boils down to Massachusetts and Connecticut? As far as I know, most analysis of the populations in those states indicates that it's just very hard to draw a Republican-majority district. They aren't concentrated enough anywhere to make up a real majority.
Mass and Conn have 18 electoral votes between them. With GOP representing approx 40% of the folks who vote, no one can tell me that it's fair that the ratio of Congress/Senate is Dems 18, GOP 0. Yes, I know there are red states with the same concentration. That's not fair either.
You say "no one can tell you", but just in case you have an open mind, here are a couple impartial analysis of the maps.
Massachusetts :
https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card?planId=recCUmeKhThrNstI9
Connecticut :
https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card?planId=recfacIoJ0xfhbB8I
Both are graded "A" for fairness.
Somehow Illinois figured it out.
https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/?planId=receAu6OJuYEkxKjG
Sure, but that is a non-sequitur about gerrymandering in New England.
It's just hard to draw a DISTRICT in those states where there are enough Republicans to make a majority. They are too thinly spread. Yes, it's a weird circumstance but that's kind of how it is.
I think what you really want is multi-member districts and proportional representation (which I would support as well, but it would take a lot of changes).
That's the whole purpose of gerrymandering. Other states such as Illinois have managed to skew the "common" out of "sense" to achieve partisan goals. Such extreme gerrymandering could be utilized to achieve more fair outcomes. See my reply to CJ above.
So basically to get any Republican districts in MA you'd have to do an extreme pro-Republican gerrymander. I don't know why anyone would expect that to happen.
Read a little about the methodology of the Princeton project I mentioned.
Just because a map is possible doesn't mean it is more fair.
You don't need to draw majority districts, you just need to not draw districts like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts's_4th_congressional_district
That reach from one of the reddest parts of the state into one of the bluest.
Politicians are flexible. If there were a mildly swing, 52-48 D-R district (easy result drawing blind in Dave's Redistricting), the right Republican candidate would shape their career to the district. You can easily come up with multiple 55-45 D-R districts just drawing districts at the city level, no precinct finagling at all.
As it is, the MA Democratic Party has successfully murdered the MA GOP, making any political career as a Republican in that state nonviable and preventing the formation of a more liberal state Republican party that could actually win. If being a Republican in Massachusetts means never holding an office above powerless state legislator, you might as well just be a moderate Democrat.
The fact that so many people think the "it's just geography LOL" retort to right wing complaints about New England shows anything but partisan self interest is frustrating.
MA-04 is how you could draw a GOP seat. I agree that by taking Fall River area and curving it almost into Cambridge, you make sure the conservative votes won't matter. A GOP seat could be drawn by taking Fall River and have that be the Western edge of a cape cod seat. That seat would be very swingy because of how p-town and that end of the cape votes. It would at least give the MA GOP a competitive seat.
NE is a bad example of a D gerrymander (use IL as your example republicans). For all the reasons you say. It is like saying that ID/MT/WY/ND/SD are gerrymandered for republicans. Not really.
CT you could draw a GOP seat. Cut the pincer arms off CT-01 so it is cored to Hartford. Have CT-03 lose the North Haven/Wallingford areas. Take those areas from CT-03 and combine them with the Bristol/Southington area. That district would probably be like a 53/47 R/D split.
MA is tougher. A GOP seat would probably have to be centered on Fall River and then instead of going north like the current MA-04, you pick up Middleborough and as much of the cape as you can while keeping the seat 50+1% GOP. You probably need a thin line from like Quincy out to P-town to make sure the places at the end of the cape don't tilt the district blue. Otherwise, there isn't a natural base of GOP support in MA. Western MA gets drown by Springfield and north of Boston will get drown by Lowell. GOP votes in MA are too dispersed to really make it easy to draw that district.
Common-sensical
"the Supreme Court’s Callais decision weakened the Voting Rights Act" is a nakedly partisan framing. You could equally well say that Callais strengthened the Constitution. But if you were interested in accuracy rather than partisan scoring, you'd say it narrowed section 2's application to redistricting, or altered the standard for race-conscious districting.
More subtly, it's a partisan framing to say the Court favors Republicans in redistricting. Shelby County, Rucho, Brnovich and Callais uphold a consistent legal framework: skepticism of race as a redistricting input, skepticism of federal judicial supervision of state political processes and textualism about what the VRA actually requires as opposed to what it has come to stand for. None of those are partisan principles, each of them could favor Democrats in some cases. And none were invented recently for redistricting fights, all are long-standing Federalist Society views about all issues.
Rather than appointing more partisan state judges, I think Democrats should look back to when they had the advantage of a coherent judicial philosophy that could establish strong bodies of law--the legal process school that transformed the US justice system from the 1950s to the 1970s and underpinned the civil rights movement. This was a philosophy that appealed to lawyers, and won hearts and minds in law school. It could be applied to actual cases as well as overarching issues. It was a constraint--it didn't alway give the progressive or Democratic answer in all cases--but it was far more influential than modern progressive legal theories like democracy-and-voting-rights or purposivism. Those are goals rather than toolkits.
If you tell me a judge is a Federalist Society member, I can predict many of her decisions accurately, without knowing anything about the parties involved, only the legal issues. Calling it "Calvinball" is a slander. Sure, many judges lean one way or the other depending on the parties, but Federalist judges are far more predictable from legal principles than political ones. If you tell me a judge clerked for Brennan and is active in the American Constitution Society, I'll predict his decisions based on politics, not law.
It is a matter of fact that the decision weakened the VRA.
You might think that is OK, or even good, but if you look at the legislative and implementation history, those goals are harder now.
"What about the Constitution" is a matter of interpretation. As your last paragraph makes clear, your "law" vs "politics" perspective is a matter of personal opinion about those terms.
The underlying issue in Callais is that the Constitution forbids race-based districting, and the VRA requires it. So any decision that weakens one necessarily strengthens the other. My point is to mention one without the other is partisan.
The trouble with partisan framings is they are inexact. That's why I prefer the more specific, "narrowed section 2 of the VRA." There are lots of ways to weaken the VRA, narrowing section 2 is only one of them. And narrowing section 2 necessarily gives more scope to the 14th amendment.
It's not just semantic. "Weakened the VRA" suggests that you can predict future Supreme Court decisions will go further against the VRA. "Narrowed section 2" carries no similar prediction. You would be wiser to predict the court will be skeptical of using race in redistricting--either to get more or fewer minority-majority districts--less willing to intervene in state election management--whether by Republicans or Democrats--and more inclined to literal interpretations of the words of the VRA--which does help Republicans as progressives have imbued the Act with more than was written or meant at the time it was passed.
As is yours.
Did you think I said "matter of interpretation" because I thought what I wrote was your opinion?
Sorry for your confusion.
No, I didn't think that. When you say your views are a matter of fact but Aaron's are just an opoinion, I clarified for you that your view of the VA Court's decision is very much an opinion and not a "matter of fact." You're welcome.
So you are of the opinion that the Supreme Court decision was aligned with the original intentions of the people who wrote and voted for the VRA?
That would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Edit ...
Oh, and as a clarifying point, when I put "What about the Constitution" in quotes it was because I was referring to a specific part of the comment I was replying to. Perhaps that will help you understand my point.
I see. So you're saying that the framers of the VRA intended to have districts that are cutouts specifically for minority populations? Because I was under the impression that the VRA was created (heroically) in specific response to poll taxes, literacy tests, and intimidation of minority voters. You otoh, seem to believe they intended to have special cutout, majority-minority districts. Also of note is your originalist view of the VRA. I would wager a great deal that you would not apply originalism to for example, the US Constitution.
Excellent analysis. But it pains me that the political biases of the courts is now very much a factor in this and any other conversation.
Democrats may be playing as the away team but they assuredly are playing outside the foul lines, esp in VA
Not really, when you look at the actual decision.
The court bopped them on the nose for rushing procedure and skipping the time frame. Some of the judges in various forms complained about various parts, but did not cite them in the judgement.
For note, in January the most conservative juror of the Virginia Supreme Court is leaving. They will likely rerun it then.
And for note, the supreme court run currently in the works, btw, is attempting to take advantage of the *Ohio 2022* decision where a map that was deemed unconstitutional was allowed for a single election because it was too late to do otherwise. Which is also basically what the logic was for the Virginia court rejecting the first vote by the state houses on the redistricting, saying that it was happening during not before the election because of early voting, therefore it couldn't count.
Realistically, this is costing the Democrats 1 to 3 seats in this election. I think 1 to 2 personally, but that's my read as a outsider looking into the rar-rar-rar of the major parties.
But the signs are that despite the panic and hysteria, the Democrats will have this in place by 2028 or 2030, the latter of which is the election which they would really need it in line for.
Privately, that's kinda WHY I think they are panicking. If the Democrats frame this as a 'We must use it to counter the Republican Gerrymanders' and tear down the independent commissions they built up, it puts them about even for the redistricting years.
If they assume that they can use Trump as the Republican Jimmy Carter, which seem likely at this point, that would lock them into a slow burn plan like similar to the Republicans recovering in the 80s and 90s from the Nixon years.
A good 2030 map for the democrats means that they get a huge bump in the census redistricting, which despite the talk here is expecting to be mostly a draw for the Democrats and republican states (mostly being the key word).
It'll be down to who controls which state houses in 2030 to determine who 'wins' the census.
Can't agree that dems will win the census redistricting. I read that the population is flowing from blue states to red as fast as people can book a moving van, since Democrats are so eager to punish success and tax anyone successful and give all the money to the failures.
Moving, yes, and in large looking numbers. But moving from big states to big states in 30k values *Just after* the states have dropped or gained a peg, and ignoring the movements to Maine and some of the smaller blue states, and the vast slow down in those moves in general is ignoring the scale needed for states to gain seats. Scale matters here.
In summary, the values are too small and are shrinking compared to what is needed for a vast upswell in seats. The republicans are looking at what averages to a 2 seat gain, 4 or 6 maybe (which is really 1 to 3 seats changing hands)... but that's only if the districts are similar to how it is currently. Georgia or Maine goes more blue? All those gains could be erased by a blue legislature. Or, worse, they might have to be given back by the conservatives to ensure they don't lose their majorities.
See, before this Gerrymandering craze, people were more focused on the 2030 census allowing for more *safe* seats previously, but that would require giving the Dems a single seat in the states that just removed them to strengthen the seats that are conservative. This is called district packing, and it's been the key tool for the conservatives keeping seats during bad years. Trump just undid that, so all those would be gains are basically already factored in.
Instead, to keep the new seat count, the Republicans would need to give democrats districts and pack those dems in... which they had been doing but toss those out to try and cut their pieces of pie just a little thiner.
If Texas starts getting a purple streak at the state level, which is a real risk with the blue state immigration, Corpus Christi's water problem, and the land seizures in the name of Data Centers? Suddenly all those gains are erased in a single moment. Just like happened to the Democrats in the 80s and 90s.
I'm not enough of an expert in this, but it does seem to me that everyone doing gerrymandering is playing with fire in that they are removing more safe districts to try creating more red or blue-leaning districts. That seems like a plan that can backfire pretty quickly if the population changes or the usual political coalitions (based on income, race, education, etc.) shift again as they have done before.
That would be correct. 1894 was the election that killed the big Gerrymander for more than a few generations, leading to smaller, more stable districts and the 'quiet gerrymander' years where states just didn't change things at all, which meant some districts were very small within states and new cities were screwed.
But I'd rather be the Democrats than the Republicans right now with doing a big Gerrymander, for reasons that are more about direction and breathing space to Gerrymander. The Republicans have, for the most part, had 40 years of building bulwarks, which kept their counts in a very specific range and their local offices very well planned. The Democrats haven't.
The reality is, the Democrats have very little to lose here. They have more room to build districts that are more stable, and they have more room to grow in the local level at a time where incumbents are generally disliked. Entering at that level, in a 4 year period likely to be favorable to them, and going hard on a opponent that is giving up the high ground for more territory on paper makes sense. It's risky, but at this point there's more risk from being seen as a punching back for them.
District packing! That's very interesting; I hadn't heard that term. Yes, I can see Trump just undid that -- there's been a lot of talking around that point in the media. "[K]ey tool for the conservatives keeping seats during bad years." Nice post, very informative. Could be an uh-oh for my side.
And yet another way of characterizing these events is your thesis gave insufficient consideration to the role of Democrats who failed to follow prescribed referenda procedures in Virginia?
With judicial elections for state supreme courts being statewide contests, these would seem immune from the effects of gerrymandering.
A major wildcard is the Hispanic vote.
California Prop 187 on 1994, and the resulting Republican rhetoric is instructive.
A large increase on Hispanic voter turnout combined with a dramatic shift in the direction of the Democratic party has obliterated the Republican party in California.
Trump's approval rating in the Hispanic community has crashed, and a lot of the polls don't include Spanish language support.
I volunteered eagerly for the Yes side in Virginia and I don't regret a minute of it (nothing like canvassing in the spring and getting fresh air), but thanks so much for your smart downplaying of the "fire everyone" Downballot idea in Virginia, which to begin with would not even have worked. Great analysis yesterday (Monday) in the Cardinal News: "Should Democrats fire the Virginia Supreme Court that ruled against them? 8 things to know about an idea making the rounds": https://cardinalnews.org/2026/05/11/should-democrats-fire-the-virginia-supreme-court-that-ruled-against-them-8-things-to-know-about-an-idea-making-the-rounds/
Note that point 1 of the 8 points is entitled "This is not a serious proposal." and begins "It's not me saying that, it's the calendar" and it goes on pretty logically from there.
One other Virginia-related note to add to your thinking -- Virginia's Supreme Court will be changing next year. It just takes a little longer to move along to match our state elections. That's on purpose, I think, to avoid overly abrupt changes. The 7 judges are appointed by the General Assembly on a staggered basis. One of the leading lights of the majority in the 4-3 decision has his term end next year. The General Assembly will appoint his replacement, who I'm guessing would probably have voted the opposite way. After that we'll have the equivalent of a "3-4" court, if you want to put it in raw terms, though very few of the little-known Virginia Supreme Court's cases are so partisan and they normally are all well regarded. I still can't believe Downballot was ready to fire the first Black female chief justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, either.
The complacency risk you identify cuts deeper than redistricting. The 2022 dynamic you describe — modest Democratic success convincing many elites that everything was fundamentally fine — already seems to be reappearing in early 2028 assumptions, where donor enthusiasm risks substituting for actual electability analysis.
The more analytically interesting question — which last week’s Michigan result sharpens considerably — is whether the special-election overperformance is candidate-type dependent rather than simply environment dependent.
Chedrick Greene — Marine veteran, fire captain, union-backed candidate — won a roughly Harris +0.4 district by nearly 20 points. That’s not just generic wave behavior. It raises the possibility that a specific candidate profile is outperforming the environment itself.
If these overperformances correlate more strongly with competence-profile, kitchen-table candidates than with activist-branded candidates — and recent races in places like Michigan, Louisiana, and Florida may suggest they do — then the real Democratic bottleneck for 2028 may not be the general-election environment. It may be whether primary incentives produce the type of candidate swing-state voters are currently rewarding.
Whitmer and Shapiro arguably represent the clearest proof-of-concept for that model in the two states most likely to decide the presidency, even while much of the donor class remains focused elsewhere.
Neither Whitmer nor Shapiro has a chance, IMO. Whitmer was the Covid Archvillain governor: she's the dork who forbade people to buy vegetable garden seeds in her state! I have NEVER forgiven that (dedicated gardener here) and don't plan to. Horrible woman. And also, she's a woman: the fundamentals for our sex are not currently looking favorable after losses by Hillary and Harris; I think Nate had a piece touching on that, IIRC. As for Shapiro, what with the war going on and the constant terrorism against Jews all around the world increasing, including here, and the continuing riots against Jews in New York and the colleges barely able to stop them ----- I'd say observant Shapiro would be a rash choice by the Dems for president. Unlikely. Unless they want to lose. I don't like that, but I think it's so.
I think the core strategic tension here is that what works in a Democratic primary may not map cleanly onto what works in the Electoral College.
Newsom may be exceptionally well-positioned for the invisible primary — donors, media, activist comfort, institutional support — but those strengths are not necessarily the same traits that maximize performance in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin.
That’s why Whitmer, Shapiro, Beshear, and even Greene in Michigan are analytically interesting. They’re not just winning as Democrats; they appear to be overperforming with exactly the kinds of persuadable swing-state voters Democrats have struggled with nationally.
Whitmer’s 2022 reelection is especially notable here. Michigan voters had every opportunity to punish her for Covid-era grievances and instead gave her a double-digit win in a major swing state. That doesn’t erase the backlash, but it does suggest candidate profile and perceived competence can outweigh it.
On the gender question specifically: I agree the consecutive losses of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris created a real perception problem for Democrats. But I’m not convinced that automatically translates into a permanent ceiling for every female candidate. Candidate profile matters. Whitmer’s political identity is much more tied to executive competence and swing-state governance than to national ideological polarization.
There’s also a generational component that may matter over time. The electorate of 2028 will not be identical to the electorates of 2016 or 2024. Younger generations generally carry different assumptions about women in executive leadership than older cohorts did, and each cycle gradually changes the composition of the electorate and the institutions surrounding it.
Likewise, Beshear winning three statewide races in a Trump+30 Kentucky and Shapiro’s broad crossover appeal in Pennsylvania both point toward a similar pattern: voters rewarding competence-profile, kitchen-table candidates over more nationalized or ideological brands.
The danger for Democrats is mistaking primary fluency for general-election coalition expansion. The key 2028 question may not be “Who most excites the Democratic coalition?” but “Which candidate profile consistently adds votes in the states that actually decide the presidency?”
Suppose we pass a constitutional amendment that says each state's congressional districts will be determined by longitude or latitude once a decade, rotating every census. And electors would be selected by two state-wide elected electors, and one electoral for each electoral district. Where electoral districts are drawn once a decade following the census but are the opposite (latitude or longitude of the congressional district.
How would this impact the red/blue split in the House? WH campaigns might become more nationalized. Swing states would matter less but swing districts around the country would matter more, which I think would be a good thing.
Are you not forgetting maybe the biggest point of all?
Politics will only get through to 20% of the population, and 19% have already picked dedicated sides. That 1% is comprised only of neoliberal gay men and their sub-stack audience.
What talks is finances. Did your pocketbook feel good?
What Trump has done is set forth 4 dollar gar prices as people drive to the polls in November. 5-10-20 seats to the republicans by gerrymandering, I honestly don't care. It's gonna be a BLUEEEEEEEE Tsunami this November.
Maybe I am naïve and 24 (keep in mind I was rooting for Romney at 10 years old and read the Signal and the noise at 12, so I have been following elections for 4 presidential cycles) But...
We have never had this financial situation going into a midterms. We are talking Jimmy Carter level anger, directed at an establishment that has 110% culpability, that just two years ago ran on "INFLATION INFATION INFLATION... oh and deport the illegals"
Even my fox news watching grandparents thought the killing of two people in Minnesota was appalling. But most of all, the gas prices have proven all their arguments wrong. I got them to promise gas wouldn't be over 4 dollars.
Once it got over 4 dollars, my grandfather started watching MS Now. Always Brett Baier, The Five and Gutfeld! with Sunday mourning's for one hours of CNN. He still watches all three Fox News shows but now he watches Velshi and even Rachel Maddow. I told him he didn't have to watch her, no liberal watches her, you don't have to do that.
4 dollar gas prices, yeah I am betting on Dems to win close to 300 seats.