First up, Katie Phang.
If Chump lost Ohio, that would really be something.
Here's C.I.'s "The Snapshot:"
After the Census Bureau released detailed population and demographic data from the 2020 census, states and local governments began the once-a-decade process of drawing new voting district boundaries known as redistricting. And gerrymandering — when those boundaries are drawn with the intention of influencing who gets elected — followed.
Four takeaways on how voting maps made the difference in a tight fight for the House in 2024. >>
The latest redistricting cycle was the first since the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that gerrymandering for party advantage cannot be challenged in federal court. Here are six things to know about partisan gerrymandering and how it impacts our democracy.
Gerrymandering is deeply undemocratic.
Every 10 years, states redraw their legislative and congressional district lines following the census. Because communities change, redistricting is critical to our democracy: maps must be redrawn to ensure that districts are equally populated, comply with laws such as the Voting Rights Act, and are otherwise representative of a state’s population. Done right, redistricting is a chance to create maps that, in the words of John Adams, are an “exact portrait, a miniature” of the people as a whole.
But sometimes the process is used to draw maps that put a thumb on the scale to manufacture election outcomes that are detached from the preferences of voters. Rather than voters choosing their representatives, gerrymandering empowers politicians to choose their voters. This tends to occur especially when line drawing is left to legislatures and one political party controls the process, as has become increasingly common. When that happens, partisan concerns almost invariably take precedence over all else. That produces maps where electoral results are virtually guaranteed even in years where the party drawing maps has a bad year.
There are multiple ways to gerrymander.
While legislative and congressional district shapes may look wildly different from state to state, most attempts to gerrymander can best be understood through the lens of two basic techniques: cracking and packing.
Cracking splits groups of people with similar characteristics, such as voters of the same party affiliation, across multiple districts. With their voting strength divided, these groups struggle to elect their preferred candidates in any of the districts.
Packing is the opposite of cracking: map drawers cram certain groups of voters into as few districts as possible. In these few districts, the “packed” groups are likely to elect their preferred candidates, but the groups’ voting strength is weakened everywhere else.
Some or all of these techniques may be deployed by map drawers in order to build a partisan advantage into the boundaries of districts. A key note, however: while sometimes gerrymandering results in oddly shaped districts, that isn’t always the case. Cracking and packing can often result in regularly shaped districts that look appealing to the eye but nonetheless skew heavily in favor of one party.
Gerrymandering has a real impact on the balance of power in Congress and many state legislatures.
In 2010, Republicans — in an effort to control the drawing of congressional maps — forged a campaign to win majorities in as many state legislatures as possible. It was wildly successful, giving them control over the drawing of 213 congressional districts. The redrawing of maps that followed produced some of the most extreme gerrymanders in history. In battleground Pennsylvania, for example, the congressional map gave Republicans a virtual lock on 13 of the state’s 18 congressional districts, even in elections where Democrats won the majority of the statewide congressional vote.
Nationally, extreme partisan bias in congressional maps gave Republicans a net 16 to 17 seat advantage for most of last decade. Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania alone — the three states with the worst gerrymanders in the last redistricting cycle — accounted for 7 to 10 extra Republican seats in the House.
On the state level, gerrymandering has also led to significant partisan bias in maps. For example, in 2018, Democrats in Wisconsin won every statewide office and a majority of the statewide vote, but thanks to gerrymandering, won only 36 of the 99 seats in the state assembly.
Though Republicans were the primary beneficiaries of gerrymandering last decade, Democrats have also used redistricting for partisan ends: in Maryland, for instance, Democrats used control over map-drawing to eliminate one of the state’s Republican congressional districts.
Regardless of which party is responsible for gerrymandering, it is ultimately the public who loses out. Rigged maps make elections less competitive, in turn making even more Americans feel like their votes don’t matter.
Gerrymandering affects all Americans, but its most significant costs are borne by communities of color.
Residential segregation and racially polarized voting patterns, especially in southern states, mean that targeting communities of color can be an effective tool for creating advantages for the party that controls redistricting. This is true regardless of whether it is Democrats or Republicans drawing the maps.
The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause greenlighting partisan gerrymandering has made things worse. The Voting Rights Act and the Constitution prohibit racial discrimination in redistricting. But because there often is correlation between party preference and race, Rucho opens the door for Republican-controlled states to defend racially discriminatory maps on grounds that they were permissibly discriminating against Democrats rather than impermissibly discriminating against Black, Latino, or Asian voters.
Targeting the political power of communities of color is also often a key element of partisan gerrymandering. This is especially the case in the South, where white Democrats are a comparatively small part of the electorate and often live, problematically from the standpoint of a gerrymanderer, very close to white Republicans. Even with slicing and dicing, discriminating against white Democrats only moves the political dial so much. Because of residential segregation, it is much easier for map drawers to pack or crack communities of color to achieve maximum political advantage.
Gerrymandering is getting worse.
Gerrymandering is a political tactic nearly as old as the United States. In designing Virginia’s very first congressional map, Patrick Henry attempted to draw district boundaries that would block his rival, James Madison, from winning a seat. But gerrymandering has also changed dramatically since the founding: today, intricate computer algorithms and sophisticated data about voters allow map drawers to game redistricting on a massive scale with surgical precision. Where gerrymanderers once had to pick from a few maps drawn by hand, they now can create and pick from thousands of computer-generated maps.
Gerrymandering also looks likely to get worse because the legal framework governing redistricting has not kept up with demographic changes. Before, most people of color in the country’s metro areas lived in highly segregated cities. Today, however, a majority of Black, Latino, and Asian Americans live in diverse suburbs. This change has given rise to powerful new multiracial voting coalitions outside cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston that have won or come close to winning power. Yet the Supreme Court has not granted these multiracial coalition districts the same legal protections as majority-minority districts, making them a key target for dismantling by partisan map drawers.
Federal reform can help counter gerrymandering — so Congress needs to act.
The Freedom to Vote Act, a landmark piece of federal democracy reform legislation that has already passed the House, represents a major step toward curbing political gamesmanship in map drawing. The bill would enhance transparency, strengthen protections for communities of color, and ban partisan gerrymandering in congressional redistricting. It would also improve voters’ ability to challenge gerrymandered maps in court.
With redistricting now beginning in many states, the need for Congress to pass reform legislation is more urgent than ever. Fair representation depends on it.
Her name is Lindsey.
NBC6 is only using her first name because she worries about her family’s privacy and possible online harassment.
“It's inhumane the way that they're keeping their residents,” she told NBC6.
Lindsey provided NBC6 documentation that shows she arrived at the so-called "Alligator Alcatraz" on July 6 and worked at the controversial detention center for about a week before she caught Covid and had to isolate.
From the beginning, she told NBC6 the situation was tough.
“When I got there, it was overwhelming,” she said. “I thought it would get better. But it just never did.”
Lindsey provided NBC6 with her State of Florida credential, which lists her position as a “corrections officer.”
She says she was told the job would be five days on, two days off.
Lindsey also provided a copy of her contract with GardaWorld Federal Services, a security company reportedly one of the vendors at "Alligator Alcatraz."
A job posting on the company’s LinkedIn account shows they were hiring for the position a month ago and offered $26 an hour for the job.
“I was aware that it was going to be the Alligator Alcatraz,” said Lindsey, who added that while she knew she would be living in a shared trailer, she said the conditions were rough for everyone there.
“We had to use the porta-johns. We didn't have hot water half the time. Our bathrooms were backed up,” she said.
NBC6 has reported similar accounts of conditions inside from advocates, detainees and their families.
When talking about the space where detainees are being held, Lindsey said it look like “an oversized kennel.”
She says each tent had eight large cages, which hold 35 to 38 inmates, which means each tent holds close to 300 detainees.
“They have no sunlight. There's no clock in there. They don't even know what time of the day it is,” Lindsey said. “They have no access to showers. They shower every other day or every four days.”
She added: “The bathrooms are backed up because you got so many people using them.”
On rainy days, she said, water pours into the tents. She described the conditions as miserable, not to forget — the constant battle with mosquitos.
“[W]e have concerns that President Trump’s interests in Trump Mobile could lead him, his business partners, or his appointees in his administration to improperly interfere with regulators at the expense of consumers and competitors.”
“Trump Mobile offers yet another avenue for tech and telecom companies to purchase influence with President Trump…”
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), along with Representatives Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) and Greg Casar (D-Texas), in writing to federal agencies to ask how they plan to mitigate potential conflicts of interest involving the new wireless service offered by Trump Mobile. President Trump stands to reap profit from Trump Mobile, while as President he has significant influence over the agencies that oversee the venture and its competitors. The letter was sent to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Treasury, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the United States Trade Representative.
“We write because we have concerns that President Trump’s interests in Trump Mobile could lead him, his business partners, or his appointees in his administration to improperly interfere with regulators at the expense of consumers and competitors,” wrote the lawmakers.
In June, Trump Mobile, the Trump Organization, and Donald Trump’s sons announced T1 Mobile LLC and the flagship $499 “made in USA” T1 smartphone, since backtracking on the “Made in the USA” claims to say that the smartphones are “[d]esigned with American values in mind.” The Trump Mobile site uses the Trump name under a trademark license, which is managed by a corporation fully owned by President Trump, who earned more than $6.6 million from his various licensing deals in 2024 alone.
“It is crucial for agencies tasked with upholding laws and regulations for wireless services to be able to do so unimpeded,” said the lawmakers.
The agencies named in the letter are responsible for overseeing the different parts of the marketplace that the T1 Mobile venture could affect. The FCC is responsible for regulating and enforcing the laws around interstate and international communications which includes mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) like Trump Mobile. The FTC is responsible for ensuring that companies like Trump Mobile do not make false or misleading claims when marketing products. The FDA is in charge of regulating medical devices, software, and mobile medical applications, which Trump Mobile appears to plan to integrate through telehealth services provided by Doctegrity and its proprietary medical device, LifeVitals. The Departments of Commerce and Treasury, along with the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, help oversee tariff policy, which presents another venue for administration officials to potentially favor Trump Mobile over other competitors.
“Trump Mobile heightens the risk that President Trump could expect preferential treatment from your agencies for this company and those that partner with it—or expect you to penalize competitors,” wrote the lawmakers.
Analysts have already raised concerns that the FCC and other regulators are favoring companies that support the President’s policies rather than evaluating mergers and other matters on the merits.
“It is critical that federal regulators continue to evenhandedly enforce competition and consumer protection laws against Trump Mobile and any companies with which it works, especially in the face of this opportunity for corruption and self-dealing for President Trump,” concluded the lawmakers.
The members of Congress asked the agencies to respond to a series of questions by September 5, 2025, including: whether they have discussed the venture with President Trump, the Trump Organization, or Trump Mobile; their plans to avoid undue political influence; and whether they would allow President Trump to intervene in the agencies’ decisions related to Trump Mobile.
###