A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

When insurers delay approvals or require endless paperwork, patients are left waiting for care they need now.

Addressing harmful corporate insurer practices can help ensure timely access to treatment and protect 24/7 care.

See how.

House Democrats had less than a week to savor their redistricting victory in Virginia before conservatives punched back—twice. First came the passage of Ron DeSantis’s new Florida map, which could eliminate four Democratic seats. Then came the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision, which blew up Voting Rights Act protections for minority-majority districts across the South.

The court’s ruling came down too late to impact Democrats’ bullish chances of retaking the House next November. Even so, Dems are reaching an R.B.G.-death level of panic about the 2028 cycle and the party’s longer-term capacity to control the House. With more time, Republicans are expected to dismantle around a dozen V.R.A.-mandated majority-minority districts, potentially unseating nearly all of the South’s Black Democrats.

A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

Prior authorizations and administrative hurdles can slow down critical care, forcing patients to wait while their health hangs in the balance.

Reforming insurer practices can help reduce delays and keep care moving when it matters most.

Learn more.

But as Democrats have learned, the best way to fight gerrymandering is to gerrymander even harder in return. They already have their sights set on new maps in New York and New Jersey next year, and are expected to try again in Illinois and Maryland. They’re also hopeful that the anticipated 2026 wave might consolidate their control of states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington—putting them in a position to execute even more retaliatory redraws. The court’s decision has not only intensified the existing redistricting war, but ensured it would spread to other neighborhoods: “This could be done in more states by the next census, at the rate this is increasing,” said a Democratic chief.

Incumbents across the House now understand that if you are a member in a state where the opposition party controls all levers of the Capitol—a Democrat in a trifecta red state, for instance, or a Republican in a trifecta blue state—you’re in danger. “This has rattled incumbents,” the Democratic chief added.

For the past 20 years, the operating logic with redistricting had been to first do no harm—to draw as aggressively as possible without spreading your party’s voters so thin that incumbents lose when the political weather turns. Both sides have now abandoned such caution and embraced a damn-the-torpedoes mentality. The Florida, Texas, and Virginia maps were drawn for maximum seats, not incumbent protection, meaning they could—and likely will—backfire down the line.

Or even sooner. The Texas and Florida maps already look shaky for Republicans this cycle. Meanwhile, Democrats—who are cautiously optimistic about taking the White House in 2028, given Trump’s plummeting approval ratings—are unnerved about 2030, when their own aggressive maps, i.e., in Virginia, could contribute to a midterm bloodbath for the party.

The Congressional Black Caucus will absorb the brunt of the V.R.A. ruling’s impact. The week’s most striking comment came from Rep. Terri Sewell, a temperamentally moderate Democrat who represents Selma, Alabama, and one of the many C.B.C. members who could face serious political trouble post-Callais. In a quote to Politico, she called for full-blown retaliation. “I take 52 seats from California,” she said, “and 17 seats from Illinois, because at the end of the day, they’re rigging this election to try to win. And we just can’t sit back here and do nothing. We’re going to play their game, and we’re going to beat them at it.”

Traditionally, state and federal Black legislators have fiercely defended their members’ heavily Democratic districts across not just the South, but the whole country. While Sewell’s openness to blowing up some of those districts in California and Illinois raised eyebrows, her comments underscored the severity of the threat to Democrats—and to the C.B.C. in particular, as the most powerful bloc within the House Democratic caucus stands to lose significant clout. Some of the C.B.C.’s most respected elders—Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina and Homeland Security ranking member Bennie Thompson of Mississippi—could see their districts torn apart next year.

Still, there may be a silver lining: Some Democratic members “think unpacking districts could be an opportunity for us in some places,” per a senior Democratic strategist. Competitive federal races could also bring professionalized campaigns and improved state parties to a region that Democrats have all but ignored in modern times. “The only way out is through,” said a Democrat who works on House races. “It’s going to kill us or make us stronger.”

While national party leaders are bellicose about the redistricting war, individual soldiers—the actual members and their aides—absolutely despise it. In nearly every conversation I had with operatives and members in both parties this week, three phrases kept recurring: “mutually assured destruction,” “Pandora’s box,” and “This is exhausting.”

That’s especially true for incumbents who haven’t run competitive general-election campaigns in decades, if ever, and now find themselves staring down the political fights of their lives. Suddenly landing on the D.C.C.C.’s “Frontline” or N.R.C.C.’s “Patriot” list of vulnerable incumbents is a jarring change for members whose competitive edge has dulled over many terms in safe districts. Fundraising immediately becomes a dominant fact of life, as does hiring consultants, building a modern campaign infrastructure, and possibly moderating a voting record. As the Democratic chief put it, it’s a “very quick time frame where people are going to become more inward-looking and selfish, and look out for their own political interests.”

The fall of the V.R.A. is guaranteed to prolong the redistricting fight that no one really wanted. Democrats blame Trump for starting it in Texas and are careful to characterize themselves as reluctant warriors; even Republicans speak similarly—albeit privately—knowing that challenging Trump means he’ll come after them in a primary. Members of neither party enjoy seeing their friends getting caught in the crossfire, nor do they want to deal with member-on-member violence like in California, where the redraw unleashed a primary fight between Republican Reps. Ken Calvert and Young Kim. Next year’s redraws will only spread the dread of political annihilation to other delegations.

While most observers say the horse is out of the barn and that redistricting is a new way of life, a few optimistic operatives hope the collateral damage will lead to reform—either national anti-gerrymandering legislation or a ban on mid-decade redistricting, perhaps after 2030 reapportionment. Or perhaps the frenzy could fade out with the man who ushered it in. Trump’s initial motive, after all, was to prevent Democrats from taking the majority in the midterms—and the subpoena and impeachment powers that come with it. But he’ll be leaving office next cycle. As one Republican put it: “You have to wonder if it’s not going to matter to him after 2028.”

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St., New York, NY 10006