Should the redistricting amendment fail, Spanberger’s opportunity to say “see, I told you so” to her fellow Virginia Democrats may very well be the opportunity to triangulate and pivot.
Citing anecdotes? Uh oh. Iowa voted 43% Democratic without a single Democrat representative in Washington. "Is that democracy? Or is it just the imposition of power?" And if "...democracy is best served by argument rather than rigged lines," please tell that to the nine states that earned Princeton's 2022 D/F congressional gerrymandering grade for favoring Republicans versus the two D/F-graded states favoring Democrats. CORRECTION: Make that FOUR states favoring Democrats, not two. My bad.
I appreciate your use of language and history in this column; it makes for an engaging and thought‑provoking read. You are correct that without Trump, this redistricting vote almost certainly would not be happening at all. His rise has pushed both parties into a prolonged arms race over process and power, with each side using the other’s excesses to justify its own.
Where I’d add some context is on the “but Trump” point. The best national work on maps shows that both parties gerrymander where they control the pen: Republicans have drawn very aggressive maps in places like Texas, Florida, Ohio, and much of the South, while Democrats have done the same in Illinois, Maryland, and a few others. So “but Trump” isn’t just a talking point; it reflects a real pattern of hardball on both sides that independents are watching with growing interest.
To me, that is the real story here: both parties are still battling over the rules of the game and doing everything they can to sway independents, who in the end decide the outcome. The amendment fight is one more arena where process, power, and fear of the other team all collide. And, as you note, the courts still have a role to play in policing the boundaries. How they choose to weigh in on these questions of maps and procedure will be fascinating to watch.
One other factor that may matter more than any single map is how voters — especially independents and soft Republicans — have been reacting to Trump‑style politics over the last several cycles. In 2022, many high‑profile election‑denying and MAGA‑branded candidates underperformed or lost in competitive states; in 2024 and 2025, we saw more evidence of voters splitting tickets and favoring more conventional conservatives and moderates over the loudest culture‑war voices. Today, Gallup finds a record‑high share of Americans identifying as independents, with party preference drifting away from Trump’s GOP and toward Democrats — a shift driven largely by independents who remain sour on both parties but move against the incumbent they dislike more. If that trend continues, the bigger constraint on “but Trump” politics may not be cartography so much as a tired electorate that is increasingly willing to punish whichever side — left or right — looks most determined to rig the rules rather than compete for their votes.
Thank you for giving voice to the process side of this debate, which too often gets lost in the noise.
In some instances, two wrongs can make a right. I think it depends on whether one believes one of the “wrongs” is actually a ”right” trying to neutralize a wrong.
Citing anecdotes? Uh oh. Iowa voted 43% Democratic without a single Democrat representative in Washington. "Is that democracy? Or is it just the imposition of power?" And if "...democracy is best served by argument rather than rigged lines," please tell that to the nine states that earned Princeton's 2022 D/F congressional gerrymandering grade for favoring Republicans versus the two D/F-graded states favoring Democrats. CORRECTION: Make that FOUR states favoring Democrats, not two. My bad.
I appreciate your use of language and history in this column; it makes for an engaging and thought‑provoking read. You are correct that without Trump, this redistricting vote almost certainly would not be happening at all. His rise has pushed both parties into a prolonged arms race over process and power, with each side using the other’s excesses to justify its own.
Where I’d add some context is on the “but Trump” point. The best national work on maps shows that both parties gerrymander where they control the pen: Republicans have drawn very aggressive maps in places like Texas, Florida, Ohio, and much of the South, while Democrats have done the same in Illinois, Maryland, and a few others. So “but Trump” isn’t just a talking point; it reflects a real pattern of hardball on both sides that independents are watching with growing interest.
To me, that is the real story here: both parties are still battling over the rules of the game and doing everything they can to sway independents, who in the end decide the outcome. The amendment fight is one more arena where process, power, and fear of the other team all collide. And, as you note, the courts still have a role to play in policing the boundaries. How they choose to weigh in on these questions of maps and procedure will be fascinating to watch.
One other factor that may matter more than any single map is how voters — especially independents and soft Republicans — have been reacting to Trump‑style politics over the last several cycles. In 2022, many high‑profile election‑denying and MAGA‑branded candidates underperformed or lost in competitive states; in 2024 and 2025, we saw more evidence of voters splitting tickets and favoring more conventional conservatives and moderates over the loudest culture‑war voices. Today, Gallup finds a record‑high share of Americans identifying as independents, with party preference drifting away from Trump’s GOP and toward Democrats — a shift driven largely by independents who remain sour on both parties but move against the incumbent they dislike more. If that trend continues, the bigger constraint on “but Trump” politics may not be cartography so much as a tired electorate that is increasingly willing to punish whichever side — left or right — looks most determined to rig the rules rather than compete for their votes.
Thank you for giving voice to the process side of this debate, which too often gets lost in the noise.
In some instances, two wrongs can make a right. I think it depends on whether one believes one of the “wrongs” is actually a ”right” trying to neutralize a wrong.