Every 10 years, the United States government conducts a census, where it counts the number of people in each state. The 435 seats in the House of Representatives are then reapportioned to the states in accordance with their changes in population. States’ legislatures, which are in charge of drawing congressional districts, usually start the redistricting process once they receive the census data, and the districts they draw normally remain in place until the next census [1]. The last census was done in 2020, and the next one is scheduled to occur in 2030. However, despite the census being four years away, some states have started to redistrict again, in what is known as mid-decade redistricting. Trump first floated the idea of mid-decade redistricting in June of 2025 [2]. This was a shock, as not only is mid-decade redistricting itself unusual, but it is also very unorthodox for a President to call for states to engage in gerrymandering. By the end of July, Republicans in the Texas legislature revealed a new map that would net Republicans five new seats in the House of Representatives. At the time, reporters said that Democrat retaliation was a “long shot” [3].

California Governor Gavin Newsom defied that consensus, fighting back against Trump's redistricting efforts. At Newsom’s behest, Democratic lawmakers in California’s state legislature introduced new maps that would benefit Democrats and called for an off-cycle election where Californians could vote to enact the new maps [4]. On November 4, 2025, Californians approved Proposition 50—a ballot measure that would implement the new maps through 2030—with 64.4 percent of the vote [5]. The new map is poised to give Democrats five more House seats, canceling out Republicans’ gains in Texas. With their redistricting victories in Missouri and North Carolina, Republicans are still ahead of the Democrats in the national redistricting battle. However, Newsom has successfully created problems for California Republicans. If other states follow in his footsteps, Republicans may end up with a national disadvantage in House races.

Consequences for California Republicans

Currently, eight of the 52 House representatives from California are Republicans [6]. The elimination of five Republican districts has thrown these eight Republicans into a battle over the three remaining seats. Orange County—where Democrats packed Republican voters from CA-41, Representative Ken Calvert’s district, into CA-40, Representative Young Kim’s district—hosts the most intense of these intra-party rivalries [7].

Kim and Calvert’s primary battle is already underway. Kim is the 40th district’s incumbent House representative. However, she represents just 35 percent of the new district [8]. Calvert also has more support from Orange County donors and politicians, including the Lincoln Club, a conservative donor group that invests heavily in Orange County politics [9].

No matter who wins in Orange County, the Republican Party will suffer a loss. Kim, one of the few Republican women of color in Congress, is the only Republican congressional representative who is Korean [10]. The loss of diversity that she would represent could prove significant, given the Party’s efforts to pursue women and Asian American voters [11, 12]. On the other hand, if Kim wins, Republicans will lose significant institutional knowledge and leadership. Calvert’s 33 years of service and position as the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee would prove difficult to replace.

The National Effects of Redistricting

So far, California Republicans have failed to overturn the Prop 50 maps, and Kim and Calvert are running as though the new maps are here to stay. While redistricting efforts may negatively impact individual Republican representatives, the true test of Trump’s redistricting success will be the midterm elections. For Trump to credibly claim success, House Republicans must gain more new seats than their Democratic rivals.

On the surface, Republicans seem to be winning the redistricting battle. The Supreme Court upheld Texas’s map, netting Republicans five presumptive seats—enough to cancel out the seats Democrats gained in California [13]. Additionally, Republicans captured four more seats through redistricting in Missouri and North Carolina [14]. Thus, Republicans sit four seats ahead in the redistricting effort. If they continue their redistricting campaign, Republicans could also see major victories in other GOP-held states. For example, Florida’s state party chair believes that Republicans can accumulate five more House seats through redistricting in the state [15]. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has already called a special session for the legislature to consider redistricting [16].

However, not all Republican legislatures are willing to follow Trump’s call. In Indiana, for instance, Republican state legislators have refused to gerrymander their state to create the new maps that Trump desires. Before the Indiana State Senate’s vote, Trump threatened to pull federal funding if Indiana Republicans did not approve the gerrymandered maps [17]. Following the state’s rejection of the maps, Trump has promised to endorse a primary challenger against the 21 Republicans who joined with Democrats to block the maps’ passage. Multiple state senators who opposed the redistricting efforts preemptively decided not to run for another term [18]. Overall, the saga will hurt Indiana voters. The representatives who step down or lose in primary elections will take their institutional knowledge with them. Moreover, if Trump follows through on the punishment he promised for the state opposing his maps, voters will suffer from the state’s federal funding losses.

While Republicans currently lead in the redistricting fight, Democrats are better positioned to gain additional seats. California’s Prop 50 circumvents the state’s independent redistricting commission until 2030 [19]. The independent redistricting commission that normally draws the state’s congressional districts comprises four independents and an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. States with independent redistricting commissions have less gerrymandering than states without them [20]. Therefore, states with independent redistricting commissions, on average, have a greater capacity to gerrymander than states without these commissions. This disparity poses an issue for Republicans, since there are far more blue states with independent redistricting commissions than there are red states. Excluding California and Arizona—a swing state with a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled legislature—there are six states with independent redistricting commissions, and only two of them have unified Republican governments [21]. The Republican states with independent redistricting commissions are also far smaller than their Democratic counterparts. Idaho and Montana, the two Republican states with independent redistricting commissions, contain a total of four congressional districts. The four Democratic states with independent redistricting commissions, on the other hand, include a combined 66 congressional districts [22]. Republicans already hold all four of Idaho's and Montana’s House seats, meaning Republicans cannot gain anything by eliminating the commissions in those states. However, between Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Washington—the four Democratic states with independent redistricting commissions—there are 20 Republican-held seats. 

If these states follow in California’s footsteps and redraw their independently created districts, they could create new Democratic seats that Republicans cannot match. In addition to hurting the Republican Party electorally, large-scale Democratic redistricting would recreate the same problems that Orange County Republicans are experiencing nationwide. Like in Orange County, Republicans would be packed into the same districts, leading incumbent representatives into primary battles that hurt the Party’s brand and cause it to lose institutional knowledge. Of course, Democrats will also face these problems in red states that redistrict. Nevertheless, if both parties continue to pursue redistricting, Republicans will face more issues. This is ironic because Trump ordered Texas Republicans to redistrict to increase his chances of keeping a Republican majority in the House after the midterm elections. Now, he is at risk of losing more of his party’s seats than he would have had he not started the redistricting war. If Democrats successfully execute their redistricting plans before the midterms, then the Democratic Party will walk away the winner of the redistricting saga. However, the Republican Party would not be this battle’s sole loser.

American voters will suffer the most from mid-decade redistricting. The first gerrymandered district in the United States was created in 1812 [23]. It was not until 160 years later, in 1972, that the first congressional redistricting commission was created in Montana. The youngest independent redistricting commission was created just eight years ago in Michigan [24]. The new redistricting battle, which is rewriting redistricting norms, threatens much of the progress toward ending gerrymandering in the United States. Many of the states with independent redistricting commissions are attempting to subvert the commissions and return to gerrymandering. The race to the bottom that mid-decade redistricting created will also deter other states from adopting independent redistricting commissions.

Independent redistricting commissions prioritize protecting minority groups and maintaining geographic contiguity [25]. Without them controlling the redistricting process, minorities could lose their representation, and communities may be split up in the service of partisan interests. Gerrymandering also reduces competition between the two major parties by creating safe, less-competitive districts [26]. It directly removes voters’ power by forcing them into districts in which the party they support has no hope of winning. Additionally, gerrymandering can create districts that are so polarized that two members of the same party win the primary election, preventing voters from choosing between Democratic and Republican candidates in the general election [27]. It is no wonder that research shows that gerrymandering causes voters to lose trust in democracy [28]. Studies have also found that representatives from gerrymandered districts—where there is less electoral competition—are less productive while in office than those from independently-drawn districts [29]. Gerrymandering breaks up communities, waters down the power of voters in the minority party, and creates lazy legislators—hurting every constituent.

The Democratic Party may be likely to win the redistricting battle that Trump began, but the fight will harm both Republicans and Democrats. Incumbent politicians must compete with displaced colleagues for merged seats, unseating many experienced legislators. These losses will be overshadowed by American voters’ inability to choose who represents them—and the subsequent rupture in their trust in democracy. Trump may lose the House, and members of Congress may lose their jobs. In the end, however, the biggest losers in redistricting are the American people.