On the Monday, November 24, 2025 episode of The Excerpt podcast: In states like Texas, California, Kansas and beyond, politicians are fighting to redraw congressional maps that could shape power in America for years to come. The question many are asking is whether 2025’s redistricting efforts are about upholding democracy or diluting representation? USA TODAY Chief Political Correspondent Phillip M. Bailey and USA TODAY Politics Reporter Kathryn Palmer join The Excerpt to hash out what the implications are for the 2026 midterm elections.

Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Dana Taylor:

In states like Texas, California, Kansas and beyond, politicians are fighting to redraw congressional maps that could shape power in America for years to come. The question many are asking is whether 2025's redistricting efforts are about upholding democracy or diluting representation. Hello and welcome to USA TODAY's The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Monday, November 24th, 2025. The battle for control of Congress is played out at the ballot box, state legislatures, and in the courts. Where are all of these efforts today? USA TODAY Chief Political Correspondent, Phillip M. Bailey, and USA TODAY politics reporter Kathryn Palmer are here to hash out what the implications are for the 2026 midterm elections. It's good to have you both on.

Phillip M. Bailey:

Hey Dana, how are you?

Kathryn Palmer:

Thank you for having us.

Dana Taylor:

Kathryn. Let's start with Texas. There was a recent federal court ruling on the new congressional map. Can you break that down for us here

Kathryn Palmer:

On Tuesday, we had a federal court block Texas from using these brand new congressional maps for its 2026 midterms, and these are the new districts that sparked what has become this nationwide arms race of redistricting. They were passed in August of earlier this year, and this is when you saw Texas Democrats kind of flee the state and spark this whole really nationwide saga that we're still grappling with right now. So we had this court found what they called substantial evidence that Texas lawmakers racially gerrymandered the map, meaning that they drew district lines in a way that sorted voters by race, which they contend would violate the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.

Dana Taylor:

And where does Republican governor Greg Abbott and the Texas GOP go from here? Is this a done deal?

Kathryn Palmer:

This is not a done deal by any means. So in the interim, this ruling basically frees these new maps. So the two to one court decision said, "You got to go back to the 2021 maps that you've been using for the past couple of years." And pretty much right after this decision was released, you have Greg Abbott immediately appealing the decision to the Supreme Court. So that's pretty much where we're going to see it next. It's going to be a pretty significant next step in this nationwide redistricting saga. And one of the things to keep in mind is that there is a clock ticking on this, especially for Texas, and it's one of the reasons that the judges in this court case in Texas made this decision pretty rapidly is the filing period for candidates who want to run in 2026 theoretically under these new districts, that started already, that started November 8th, and it's set to close December 8th. So with such high stakes and a clock that's ticking, we'll be hearing soon on what the next steps are going to be.

Dana Taylor:

Phillip, in response to the Texas redistricting California governor Gavin Newsom and California Democrats responded with Prop 50. What happened there?

Phillip M. Bailey:

Well, look, with Proposition 50, when we saw earlier this year in the November 4th elections, Democrats are certainly over the moon in winning Proposition 50, really in a two to one margin. I think 64% of voters who showed up to the polls supported Governor Newsom's initiative basically to ditch their nonpartisan panel that draws their congressional districts and basically just have the legislature do it on its own. This potentially could give Democrats five new Democratic leaning seats. Now, the Department of Justice seeing this has filed a lawsuit against Proposition 50, which Governor Newsom's office and others on the Democratic side field that they'll be able to withstand.

But look, when this redistricting war was started by President Trump, Gavin Newsom, who is a potential 2028 presidential candidate, made it very clear that he wanted to fight fire with fire here. And despite outside groups and others who said Democrats should not race to the bottom here on redistricting, Governor Newsom was made it clear that Democrats were not going to have one arm tied behind their back in this situation. So when that proposition passed, it could potentially give Democrats five additional seats. You now see even other Democratic led states and the legislature is taking up similar initiatives in promising to do the same thing in their states.

Dana Taylor:

And where do things stand with California's Republican legislators?

Phillip M. Bailey:

Well, again, that lawsuit there from the DOJ, California Republicans who always oftentimes feel in the wilderness politically are arguing that this was a power grab by Gavin Newsom that won't do him any favors when he tries to sell himself as a presidential candidate in places like the Midwest states like Michigan or even in Southwest states like Arizona. So Republicans in California are making it clear, "Look, this is a power grab by the governor. He's more concerned with his presidential ambitions." That, I don't think, is going to really make its way out of California politics. When you look at this lawsuit, though, you are seeing the Trump administration take this effort seriously and seeing the Democrats are beginning to gain ground in different legislatures, I think it's something that they're fearful of, but Republicans weren't able to really make this a referendum on Gavin Newsom.

We saw in the polls, Dana, for example, that look, when people were asked in California, "Do you support Proposition 50? Are you doing this because you don't like Donald Trump or don't like Gavin Newsom?" And Newsom who isn't always popular. I remember there was that recall for him a few years ago that he survived, but California Republicans were not able to make this a referendum on Gavin Newsom. Those who showed up to the polls saw this either a way to snap back at Donald Trump or as a way to give Democrats the ability to fight fire with fire as the governor was arguing for.

Dana Taylor:

And then leading Democrats in Virginia and Maryland legislatures, they were involved in a public spat earlier this month. They're not in agreement about jumping in the national fray over redistricting. What's going on there?

Phillip M. Bailey:

There's a bit of Democrat on Democrat violence here. I mean, you have Virginia Senate President L. Louise Lucas, who's known to be an outspoken state lawmaker. When Senate president over in Maryland, Bill Ferguson was bragging about the victories the Democrats had on November 4th, talking about the wins for Virginia and wins in New Jersey for governor, he mentioned and said, "Hey, look, this is the reason we don't need to do redistricting. We're already winning these elections by making a political argument against Trump and against the efforts he was making." Well, L. Louise Lucas went on social media and called out President Ferguson over in Maryland saying that, "Look, keep our win out of your mouth. You're not willing to do what we need you to do in Maryland." Because remember, Dana, it was Bill Ferguson who was the person who was speaking up against the effort in Maryland to do the same exact redistricting plan.

And Maryland's idea led by Governor Wes Moore, there's the thought that, look, Maryland could pick up about one congressional seat. I think of all their eight congressional seats, all but one are Democratic. Well, when this was coming up in Maryland, it was Bill Ferguson said, "I'm not really sure about this. I really don't think we should do this." And he kind of put the brakes on it a bit L. Louise Lucas over there across in Virginia said, "Uh-uh, before you start bragging about and taking credit for and saying all the wins over here in Virginia, why don't you do what we need you to do instead of echoing these MAGA talking points." As she put it. So there was a bit of this intraparty fight. I think it's on the Democratic side as well. Again, not everyone is sold on the idea of doing this. It wasn't too long ago, Dana, maybe just a few short years ago during when President Biden was still in office, the Democrats were saying, "We shouldn't go down this pathway. Nonpartisan officials and nonpartisan entities should draw these congressional districts."

Well, that's all been changed by President Trump. So you're seeing L. Louise Lucas over there in Virginia taking shots at Bill Ferguson, Virginia is taking up its own redistricting plan as well. So when you see this sort of intraparty fighting, it shows you how important this is for Democrats who believe that this is the sort of setting the table for 2026. So that intraparty fight, I think took on a whole life of its own, and I think we're going to see more of that in the months to come.

Dana Taylor:

Kathryn, let's turn now to Indiana. What was President Donald Trump hoping to see there, and where did those efforts stand?

Kathryn Palmer:

President Donald Trump has been pressuring a lot of Republican governors to move forward on this redistricting scheme. Indiana is one of those states. Unfortunately, just last week, the senate leader over there in Indiana said, "Yeah, hey, we don't have enough Republican support to move forward with this." So this is another challenge, another group of state Republicans who are pushing back against Trump's directive and kind of adding to this overall obstacle for Trump in trying to direct some of these states to move forward.

Dana Taylor:

And is it pretty much the same story in Kansas?

Kathryn Palmer:

Yeah, add them to the list. It was the same deal. It was you have state lawmakers who are mulling over whether or not they want to do this mid-decade redistricting, follow in Texas's footsteps, so to speak. And you're not seeing the same gung-ho attitude all across the country, and certainly not even across state Republican lawmakers. So that's what happened in Kansas. It's another state on the list where you have Republican lawmakers pushing back against the president's really vocal push for this redistricting that would, in his hopes, and especially in other national GOP leaders' hopes, advantage the Republican Party ahead of the 2026 elections, which is going to be a monumental struggle between the two parties with the GOP currently struggling with such a slim majority in Congress as it stands.

Dana Taylor:

Phillip, both North Carolina and Missouri legislatures have already passed new congressional maps. Are there any other GOP-led states that are considering redistricting, especially in light of the recent decision in Texas?

Phillip M. Bailey:

Yes. I mean, there are a number of other Republican states that are either being pressured directly by the Trump administration where either the Vice President JD Vance has swooped in and had meetings with state lawmakers or through court-ordered measures. You have New Hampshire, which is considering, I think has recently rebuffed those efforts, but they're being pressured to change their congressional districts. Florida is on that list as well on the Republican side. And of course Ohio, Ohio's a bit different. There's a court-ordered issue there, but certainly that could add maybe two congressional districts for Republicans if they redraw their maps in the way that they indicate. And so look, you have these different Republican states that are either being pressured directly by the administration or not, and they're all having their very different conversations. In Indiana, there is some resistance from the Senate president, in New Hampshire, there's a bit of resistance.

But in other states like North Carolina, they are certainly going more along with President Trump's idea here. And all of this thing I think should be pointing out what the political backdrop to this is. Because the Trump administration is worried like all presidents are, that the midterms won't turn out that well for them. Historically, the midterm elections are bad for the sitting president. For many ways, look, the way the Democrats sell 2026 and Gavin Newsom is a part of this selling and this argument and this narrative as well, is that this is effectively the end of the Trump administration. He'll officially become a lame duck if Democrats retake the house. They'll have, not only will they be able to stop to his legislative agenda, but they'll also have subpoena powers, giving all of those different Democrats in those committees the gavel authority to call in administration officials to carpet and to question them, whether it's about ICE raids, whether it's about costs, whether it's about the tariffs.

All of President Trump's agenda will be mired in a Democratic majority very much in the same way that his first term was after the 2018 midterm election. So there's an incentive, politically speaking, for Trump to fight this way. It's unprecedented, absolutely, and I think you're seeing at the state level, both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side, state legislators take exception to being told what to do with these congressional maps by Washington.

Dana Taylor:

And then in looking at the Democrat side, what about other Democratically led states? Is it game on for both parties now, just a tit-for-tat?

Phillip M. Bailey:

Absolutely. I mean, look, you look at Governor JB Pritzker over there in Illinois. He's considering, has flirted with the idea of their legislature or taking on this fight, this redistricting fight and redrawing their maps, which would draw probably one or two congressional districts for Democrats. Virginia has already started that process in Maryland, again, with Governor Wes Moore. Another rumored presidential candidate is thinking about it as well. So there are many different interests here at play. You have Democratic governors whose names happen to be on the short list for rumored presidential candidates in 2028 saying, "We're going to take this fight up because our base wants this. Progressive base wants to fight back against Donald Trump."

You're also seeing, I think, again, the Trump administration worried about Democrats taking back the House. So there are competing interests here. What I find interesting is that you haven't heard a whole lot, at least vocal, from some of those nonpartisan groups like the Brennan Center and others, and they've put out press releases and made some warnings, but from those who argue that, "Look, this is going to create a more divided Congress. If you don't like the fact that Congress can't get a whole lot done and there are these divisions, well, these states go into their respective corners and starting this redistricting war isn't going to help with that."

Dana Taylor:

Phillip, let's take a giant step back here and touch on the history of gerrymandering in America. What are your thoughts here? Can you give us some historical perspective?

Phillip M. Bailey:

Gerrymandering, I think, has been used by both parties historically. There's always been a pointing of the fingers by both sides, "Well, you're doing it in California." "Well, you're doing it in New York." "Well, you're doing it in Florida." In Texas, and the like. And this is why I think just a few years ago, we saw groups and former US Attorney General Eric Holder was really the spearhead for this arguing that nonpartisan figures and commissions and panels should be drawing these districts. Not politicians picking their voters, it should be the other way around. And oftentimes when you look at how some of these districts, Dana, are drawn in different states, I mean, they're drawn in a really funky way. I mean, they're not contiguous. There's not a lot of commonality sometimes in these congressional districts across states, and I think there's going to have to be a reassessment, perhaps.

More than likely it will have to take place when Donald Trump is no longer a part of national politics. We'll see if he tries to change the constitution or run for a third term. I know a lot of his allies want him to, but in order for this to really be settled, I think we're going to have to get past some of the current personalities who are having this conversation. When I talk to sources from the Brennan Center and other places who believe in a nonpartisan group of people picking these districts or drawing these districts rather than politicians, a lot of them agree that, "Look, this is going to have to go through the process and we're going to have to have some of these national figures maybe step to the side." Whether that will happen in the near future, there's a lot of skepticism about.

Dana Taylor:

Phillip M. Bailey is a USA TODAY Chief Political Correspondent and Kathryn Palmer, USA TODAY Politics Reporter. Thank you both so much for taking the time to come on.

Phillip M. Bailey:

Dana, as always, thank you.

Kathryn Palmer:

Thank you so much.

Dana Taylor:

Much. Thanks to our senior producer, Kaely Monahan for production assistance, our executive producer's Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@usatoday.com. Thanks for listening, I'm Dana Taylor. I'll be back tomorrow morning with another episode of USA TODAY's The Excerpt.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Politicians are fighting to redraw congressional maps | The Excerpt

Reporting by Dana Taylor, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect