Here’s why the redistricting fight is raging. And why it may be moot
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Fierce partisan skirmishing suggests control of the House will be decided in 2026 by a whisker, which may not be so.
- Since World War II, the out party has averaged a gain of more than two dozen seats. Democrats need to gain three for control
A handful of seats are all that keep Republicans in control of the House, giving President Trump untrammeled sway over, well, pretty much everything, from the economy to the jokes on late-night TV to the design of the Cracker Barrel logo.
It’s a number that’s both tantalizing and fraught, depending on your political perspective.
For Democrats, that eyelash-thin margin means they’re thisclose to regaining power and a political toehold in next year’s midterm election. All they need is a gain of three House seats. For Trump and fellow Republicans, it means their hegemony over Washington and life as we know it dangles by a perilously thin thread.
That tension explains the redistricting wars now blazing throughout our great land.
It started in Texas, where Trump pressured Republicans to redraw congressional lines in hopes of handing the GOP as many as five additional seats. That led California Democrats to ask voters, in a Nov. 4 special election, to approve an eye-for-an-eye gerrymander that could yield their party five new lawmakers.
Several other states have waded into the fight, assuming control of the House might be decided next year by just a few seats, one way or the other.
Which could happen.
Or not.
Anyone claiming to know for sure is either lying, trying to frighten you into giving money, or both.
Proposition 50 would gerrymander the state and decimate Republican representation in Congress. What do Democrats running for governor say to California’s millions of GOP voters?
“History is on Democrats’ side, but it’s too early to know what the national political environment is going to be like,” said Nathan Gonzales, one of the country’s top political handicappers and publisher of the nonpartisan campaign guide Inside Elections. “We don’t know the overall mood of the electorate, how satisfied voters [will be] with Republicans in power in Washington or how open to change they’ll be a year from now.”
A look back offers some clues, though it should be said no two election cycles are alike and the past is only illuminating insofar as it casts light on certain patterns.
(Take that as a caveat, weasel words or whatever you care to call it.)
In the last half century, there have been 13 midterm elections. The out party — that is, the one that doesn’t hold the presidency — has won 13 or more House seats in eight of those elections. Going back even further, since World War II the out party has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats.
In Trump’s last midterm election, in 2018, Democrats won 40 House seats — including seven in California — to seize control. (That was 17 more than they needed.) A Democratic gain of that magnitude seems unlikely next year, barring a complete and utter GOP collapse. That’s because there are fewer Republicans sitting in districts that Democrats carried in the most recent presidential election, which left them highly vulnerable.
In 2018, 25 Republicans represented districts won by Hillary Clinton. In 2026, there are just three Republicans in districts Kamala Harris carried. (Thirteen Democrats represent districts that Trump won.)
Let’s pause before diving into more numbers.
OK. Ready?
There are 435 House seats on the ballot next year. Most are a lock for one party or the other.
Based on the current congressional map, Inside Elections rates 64 House seats nationwide as being at least somewhat competitive, with a dozen considered toss-ups. The Cook Political Report, another gold-plated handicapper, rates 72 seats competitive or having the potential to be so, with 18 toss-ups.
Both agree that two of those coin-flip races are in California, where Democrats Adam Gray and Derek Tran are fighting to hang onto seats they narrowly won in, respectively, the Central Valley and Orange County. (The Democratic gerrymander seeks to shore up those incumbents.)
Barabak: In America’s hardest-fought congressional district, voters agree: Release the Epstein files
Democrats and Republicans alike call for transparency in the case of the convicted sex offender, even if it hurts President Trump. It’s a rare show of political unity in California’s Central Valley.
You really can’t assess the 2026 odds without knowing how the redistricting fight comes out.
Republicans could pick up as many as 16 seats through partisan map-making, Inside Elections forecasts, a number that would be reduced if California voters approve Proposition 50. Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, puts GOP gains as high as 13, again depending on the November outcome in California.
Obviously, that would boost the GOP’s chances of hanging onto the House, which is precisely why Trump pushed for the extraordinary mid-decade redistricting.
But there are many other factors at play.
One huge element is Trump’s approval rating. Simply put, the less popular a president, the more his party tends to suffer at the polls.
Right now Trump’s approval rating is a dismal 43%, according to the Cook Report’s PollTracker. That could change, but it’s a danger sign for Republicans. Over the past three decades, every time the president’s net job approval was negative a year from the midterm election, his party lost House seats.
Democratic consultant Jim Ross and his Republican consultant brother, Tom, say their affection and mutual regard is something no campaign can ever sunder — even in these contentious times.
Another thing Democats have going for them is the passion of their voters, who’ve been flocking to the polls in off-year and special elections. The Downballot, which tracks races nationwide, finds Democratic candidates have far surpassed Kamala Harris’ 2024 performance, a potential harbinger of strong turnout in 2026.
Those advantages are somewhat offset by a GOP edge in two other measures. Republicans have significantly outraised Democrats and have limited the number of House members retiring. Generally speaking, it’s tougher for a party to defend a seat when it comes open.
In short, for all the partisan passions, the redistricting wars aren’t likely to decide control of the House.
“Opinions of the economy and Trump’s handling of it, the popularity (or lack thereof) of Republicans’ signature legislation” — the tax-cutting, Medicaid-slashing bill passed in July — as well as “partisan enthusiasm to vote are going to be more determinative to the 2026 outcome than redistricting alone,” Amy Walter, the Cook Report’s editor-in-chief, wrote in a recent analysis.
In other words, control of the House will most likely rest in the hands of voters, not scheming politicians.
Which is exactly where it belongs.
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The redistricting wars currently blazing across the country, while dramatic and attention-grabbing, are unlikely to be the decisive factor in determining control of the House in 2026, as historical patterns and other political dynamics will likely carry more weight in the final outcome.
Historical data strongly favors Democrats in midterm elections, with the out-party gaining an average of more than two dozen House seats since World War II, and winning 13 or more seats in eight of the last 13 midterm cycles, suggesting structural advantages that transcend redistricting efforts.
The current political landscape presents fewer vulnerable Republican targets compared to 2018, when 25 Republicans sat in Clinton-won districts versus only three Republicans currently in Harris-won districts, making a Democratic wave of similar magnitude unlikely regardless of map changes.
Trump’s dismal 43% approval rating represents a significant danger sign for Republicans, as historical precedent shows that every time a president’s net job approval was negative a year before midterms over the past three decades, his party lost House seats.
Economic conditions, Trump’s handling of signature legislation like the tax-cutting and Medicaid-slashing bill passed in July, and overall partisan enthusiasm will prove more determinative of the 2026 outcome than redistricting manipulations alone.
Control of the House should ultimately rest in the hands of voters rather than scheming politicians engaged in partisan map-drawing exercises, representing the proper functioning of democratic governance.
Different views on the topic
Texas Republicans argue their redistricting effort represents legal and necessary action to ensure fairer representation for Texans, with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick stating the new congressional map “will now more accurately reflect our state” and ensure “a Congress that represents their values”[1].
Republican supporters of redistricting openly acknowledge their aim to gain partisan advantage while consistently emphasizing the legality of their actions, with State Sen. Phil King arguing the maps meet “critically important goals of legality, of political performance for Republicans, and of improved compactness”[1].
The redistricting push originated from President Trump and the Department of Justice as a strategic necessity to maintain GOP control of the House, with Gov. Abbott stating he “promised we would get this done, and delivered on that promise” after Trump’s direct request[1][2].
Republican officials frame the mid-decade redistricting as addressing representation imbalances rather than partisan manipulation, with Abbott celebrating in a social media video that Texas is “now more red in the United States Congress” and arguing the maps “ensure fairer representation in the United States Congress for Texans”[2].
The redistricting effort could potentially yield significant Republican gains of up to five additional congressional seats, providing a crucial buffer for maintaining party control in a closely divided House where every seat matters for legislative priorities[1][3].
Supporters argue the redistricting represents legitimate use of state legislative authority during special sessions, following proper procedural channels and legal frameworks established for congressional map-drawing in Texas.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently approved California’s request to extend housing assistance to survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fires. But more than 18 months after those January 2025 fires, survivors are still waiting on an additional $16 billion in federal disaster relief from the federal government, which was revised down earlier this year from nearly $34 billion.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
