Lines are Drawn for Redistricting Battle

Political battles are something all of our readers should be familiar with, ranging from fiery talks on the Senate floor to heated campaigns. But a battle that is often uncommon is that of turf; where are these campaigns going to be fought?

That is the question that is brought to Americans as Texas sought to redraw its district maps this past week.

During midterm elections, each state has a number of seats it elects to the House of Representatives, proportional to its population. Each one of those representatives is elected from their respective congressional district.
However, how congressional district lines are drawn falls into the hands of the states themselves, which opens a door for corruption to seep through: the process of gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is a process in which district lines are deliberately mapped in a way that gives one party an advantage over another. Gerrymandering is done by splitting up a district with people who primarily vote for one party. The district is then absorbed by several other counties, which remove the majority of the one party. A much more in-depth explanation of gerrymandering can be found here.

Such a race began on July 15th, when Donald Trump urged Texas Republicans to redraw their district maps to favor Republicans ahead of the 2026 election. This would create seats more favorable to the Republican Party, ideally allowing them to maintain control during the midterm elections. The call came one week before Texas was scheduled to begin a special legislative session to determine whether or not to redraw district maps. The proposed redrawn maps could give five extra seats to the Republicans. Texas’s district maps have long been criticized by Democrats for being gerrymandered.

Florida has also floated the idea of redrawing their district maps mid-decade. On July 24, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) said that Florida should consider redrawing its own district maps between the decennial census, arguing the population surge warrants it.

Responses from Democrats came on the 17th, when California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) vowed to redraw California's district map in response, stating: “this is not a bluff. This is real, and trust me, it’s more real after listening to these leaders today, how existential this is.” If successful, Newsom's plan would give an additional seven seats to the Democrats, but they face challenges: California and Illinois are required to hold a special election or receive a court order in order to change their district maps, as opposed to Texas and Florida, which can do it with a mandate from the governor.

Another challenge stems from how Democrat members are feeling. While most are sticking to their party’s plans as a necessary evil, some are concerned about the partisan flames these plans stoke.

“It's a difficult conversation, because we're literally doing it to gerrymander— everything that we stood against, and the reason we created the independent redistricting commission,” an anonymous House Democrat from California told Axios.

A similar response is mobilizing in Illinois, with Democrat Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) of Illinois said on July 26th: “Everything is on the table.” Illinois district maps have also been criticized by House Republicans for being gerrymandered.

New York’s Governor, Kathy Hochul (D), has also suggested she may redraw her own state’s district lines. 

Both Newsom and Pritzker are seen as potential Democrat presidential candidates in 2028.

This political battle is not to be underestimated and has drawn explosive political rhetoric. On Saturday, July 26th, Congressional Candidate Isaiah Martin (D) was dragged out of Texas’s hearing on redrawing district lines and spent a day in jail for yelling at the representatives. Mr. Martin said, “I’ll do it again, for Texas.”

The redistricting battle is one of the most important ones leading up to the 2026 midterms. If successful, redrawing the maps would lead to hundreds of thousands of Americans having their votes undercut.

Fanning the flames of political partisanship is never a good thing, but as the race for 2026 heats up, it looks to be exactly what this political battle is going to be.

Extemp Analysis by Finian Knepper

Question: Should gerrymandering be a concern in the 2026 elections?

AGD: While this is a serious issue, it’s best to go for a humorous AGD - some satirical jab at any politician. There’s no true human impact (for now) so a narrative AGD just doesn't apply. 

Background: First, you’re going to have to explain to your judge what gerrymandering is - and ideally why it's a problem. Then, you should move into some context, that a gerrymandering battle is kicking off in several states ahead of the 2026 Election. 

Answer: What you choose to go with will be up to you. However, this question is a descriptive question; I recommend using past-present-future substructure. Moreover, There are two burdens you have to answer. 

1. What defines Gerrymandering?

2. What defines “should be worried”?

For this question, I would go with a standard definition of gerrymandering, but for my second burden, I would go with the definition of “should be worried” as “Someone we need to take action about.” Then, by promising to take action, you can make 3 great points. 

Concluding thoughts: This question is HARD. While taking it now would be good practice, in a real round it’d be best to choose another one.  It’s got too many burdens, and with lack of room for a narrative to really make yourself shine, it’s best to leave it be. 

Read More Here:

• Andrew Solender, Axios

• Alex Isenstadt, Axios

• Liz Crampton, Politico