Congress

Why Democrats’ New York gerrymander won’t be as aggressive as the GOP’s efforts

Published

4 months ago

May 8, 2026

ALBANY, New York — With Democrats’ national redistricting calculus now in disarray over Friday’s court order blocking new Virginia maps, party leaders are looking to New York as a prime opportunity to keep pace with Republicans.

But as top Democrats in the Empire State move ahead with their attempt to redraw lines in 2028, they’re also far more likely to pull their punches in the ongoing gerrymandering wars.

The Supreme Court’s decision last week to end a key provision of the Voting Rights Act allows states to break up districts previously drawn to accommodate minority voters. Republicans in states like Alabama and Tennessee are rushing to take advantage by dissolving majority Black districts. In New York — the state where Democrats have the most to gain by drawing new lines — there’s virtually no appetite to respond in kind, underscoring a looming barrier for blue states in the redistricting fight.

“People were walking across bridges and being mauled, and have lost their lives for these rights,” New York Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said of the VRA. “These laws are there because there has been a real effort to disenfranchise certain people, certainly Black people, from being able to vote. So we want to protect that.”

In the coming weeks, New York lawmakers are expected to begin the lengthy process of approving a constitutional amendment that would let them redraw congressional lines in 2028. If successful, the measure stands to turn a state with 19 Democrats and seven Republicans into one with a 22-4 or 23-3 edge.

Such an outcome is akin to what Republicans pushed through in Texas last summer — but not as extreme as the 9-0 Republican map Tennessee lawmakers drew Thursday by eliminating a Black majority district in Memphis.

In New York, a 26-0 map isn’t plausible. But in a deep blue state where Democrats routinely receive around 60 percent of the vote in statewide races, maps that feature tendrils extending from the Bronx and Brooklyn into the furthest regions of upstate and Long Island are possible. And such a reconfiguration would give Democrats an even greater advantage compared with maps they’ve floated in the not so distant past.

Doing that would require eliminating districts that were protected by the VRA until last week. Those districts include the Brooklyn seat held by House Minority Hakeem Jeffries, who said last month that Democrats need to “fight back with every tool available.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also emphasized the urgency Democrats are feeling Friday at an event honoring Rep. Jan Schakowsky in Chicago, stressing that the court order blocking new maps in Virginia “puts responsibility — even greater responsibility — to those of us in this room, specifically in New York and in the state of Illinois.”

“We have power here in this room to help balance the scale, and we are now in a national fight in order to do that,” she said. “The decisions we make on the city level, the state level and on the federal level, with our representation is part of a much larger story.”

In practice, though, New York’s Democratic leaders do not appear inclined, at the moment at least, to similarly weaponize the newfound ability to disempower Black voters.

“I don’t think we want to roll back protections for minority communities in New York,” said Senate Deputy Leader Mike Gianaris, who’s led his conference’s redistricting efforts since 2012.

The fact that keeping these districts intact is a core personal political belief for leaders like Stewart-Cousins — and a political third rail for everyone in the state’s Democratic Party — will likely limit how aggressive Democrats approach redistricting.

Consider the electoral math on Long Island, where two Democrats and two Republicans now occupy House seats. Maps floated before the 2022 redistricting process would have squeezed many Republicans into just one district, giving Democrats a narrow edge in three.

Expanding that to a 4-0 advantage would require completely ignoring political and demographic boundaries. And states now have the authority to do that under the Supreme Court’s recent decision. Picture a scenario where Democrats slice up blue districts in Brooklyn and Queens and merge them with the purple and red ones to the city’s east — a serpentine seat joining Bedford-Stuyvesant with the Hamptons, for example.

Drawing lines like that isn’t possible, though, without turning historically Black strongholds like those represented by Jeffries and Reps. Yvette Clark and Gregory Meeks into districts with white majorities — or eliminating the Asian plurality in Rep. Grace Meng’s district, or the Hispanic majority in Ocasio-Cortez’s seat. And doing that is almost certain to draw intense pushback from organizations whose support is needed to win approval for the planned 2027 redistricting referendum.

“It’s really, really important that we are at the table from the beginning of this process so that the parties, as they start to course correct, are not overcorrecting,” said L. Joy Williams, the NAACP New York State Conference’s president.

“Voter disenfranchisement doesn’t require malicious intent,” she continued. “In people’s pursuit of political power, if they are doing it at the expense of voters, that’s a problem, and your course correction could inadvertently disenfranchise more people.”

The first occupant of Clarke’s Brooklyn district was former Rep. Shirley Chisholm, after the seat was created in 1966 through the VRA. That district, and the desire to protect its legacy, drew more attention than any in the state during public hearings before the 2022 redistricting — underscoring how much blowback there would be to splintering it in an attempt to boost Democratic odds in Suffolk County.

But it’s far from the only seat in New York that was kept safe due to the VRA.

As Democrats revisited the maps in 2024, the easiest gerrymander in the state would have been blending the seat then held by former Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman with the neighboring one held by Republican Rep. Mike Lawler. Doing so would have paved the way to transforming districts with a 29-point Democratic edge and a 1-point Republican edge, respectively, into two districts with 14-point Democratic advantages.

There were concerns about drastic changes to Bowman’s map, though. Overhauling a district where 60 percent of the residents are minorities could have led to a legal challenge under the VRA. And while that’s no longer the case, Democrats still appear inclined to resist aggressively splitting that seat.

“We believe in democracy,” said Stewart-Cousins. “We’re very concerned that we are in a place where not only do we need to defend against the radical remaking of how we do democracy, but that we’re actually defending the very existence of democracy in a multiracial society.”

—Shia Kapos contributed reporting

Congress

House Democrats watch closely as Hakeem Jeffries vows to rein in rogue members

Published

33 minutes ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats have spent the better part of two years looking on in glee as House Republicans have struggled to wrangle their narrow majority and enact a consensus agenda.

Now, eyeing a potentially small majority of their own, they are eager not to see the shoe quickly land on the other foot — which is why Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is under fierce internal pressure to crack down on a surprise rebellion this week.

The decision by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) to support a Republican procedural measure that would have otherwise failed — essentially bailing out Speaker Mike Johnson’s floor agenda — prompted Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders to decry a “breach of trust” and promise a “serious response.”

Rank-and-file members are watching closely to see if Jeffries follows through on those threats and moves to rein in rogue members who could undermine the party agenda and his own leadership.

“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat and a Jeffries ally. “I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”

Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.

“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here … when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding. … We don’t want that.”

“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”

Already, House Democrats have competing views about how and when to punish the rogue members. Multiple members, for example, have privately suggested kicking Gluesenkamp Perez off of the Appropriations Committee — a highly coveted assignment.

Gluesenkamp Perez represents a district President Donald Trump won in 2024.

But others acknowledge that leaders have little leverage against the duo. Golden is leaving the House at the end of this term, and Gluesenkamp Perez is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country.

Keeping her seat in a district President Donald Trump won by 3 percentage points in 2024 could determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and she has made her clashes with party leaders a core part of her political identity.

Some members — including progressives who used procedural votes for leverage during Nancy Pelosi’s speakership — also cautioned leadership from overpolicing members.

Asked about how Jeffries should “punish” the members, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Progressive Caucus, said, “We’re not kids, and he’s not our dad.”

“I’m elected by 750,000 people. I get to make my decisions about what I want,” Jayapal said before adding, “At the same time, I think there has to be a strong commitment to the team.”

“I think that there can be certain reasonable expectations — for example, to flag how one may intend to vote on something,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I also think that the idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.”

Both of the rebels are shrugging off the intense reaction from Democratic leaders and some of their colleagues. Golden said he voted with Republicans to advance a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in Maine; Gluesenkamp Perez said she voted to support Golden and “people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water.”

“I do not have a polished political strategy,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I know my community, and that’s who sent me here, and that’s who I am thinking about.”

Many of their Democratic colleagues aren’t ready to just let it go, however. Several argued in interviews that if every member broke ranks on procedural votes to advance legislation they support, the party would lose significant leverage.

Golden, left, is retiring after his term ends.

“I am generally of the view that if you believe that you are a free agent in this town, maybe you don’t get to use the team locker room anymore,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said, adding that he could not think of a potential punishment “within the scope of what leadership can do that could be opposed by the caucus.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said “some tough love“ might be necessary to send a message to the broader caucus: “We’re all in this together.”

Amid the agita, it’s not clear how quickly Jeffries will act. An internal committee dealing with caucus rules met Wednesday and discussed the matter but did not advance any specific proposals for sanctions or rules changes.

Jeffries himself has not committed to a timeline for imposing consequences against the two defectors. He told reporters Wednesday he wants to pursue action “sooner rather than later” as he faces internal questions about whether he can exert the same level of control over Democrats as his predecessor did.

Pelosi dealt with rebellions of her own, including moderates who repeatedly voted with Republicans to amend Democratic bills on the floor. But she pointedly commented on the disloyalty on display this week, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez essentially voting to advance the GOP floor agenda.

“We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said Tuesday. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”

Another lawmaker who was happy to comment Wednesday was Johnson, who has routinely contended with GOP mutinies during his time in office — including one that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden bailed him out of Tuesday.

Jeffries “has a serious problem in his caucus,” he told reporters, citing the “warring factions in his party.”

“I don’t see a way out of that thicket,” he said. “But I’m not going to tell him how to govern his conference, and he doesn’t, or shouldn’t, be telling me how to.”

Congress

Tillis renews calls for Hegseth’s ouster

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Thom Tillis renewed his call for President Donald Trump to fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, following the resignation earlier this week of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country,” the outgoing two-term North Carolina Republican wrote on X. “He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force.”

Driscoll, whose long-rumored resignation became official this week, had clashed with Hegseth over the Defense secretary’s reluctance to modernize the Army and his firings of dozens of senior officers. Hegseth has focused more on cultural issues — including grooming and fitness standards — within the department.

“If we had a @SecWar who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement,” Tillis charged. “Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”

The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment on Tillis’ post.

Tillis, who is not running for reelection in November, has openly clashed with Hegseth since Trump tapped the former Fox News host to lead the Pentagon in 2024.

In May, Tillis told POLITICO he believed Hegseth had misinformed Trump on the dynamics of a war in Iran. Firing Hegseth, he said, was on “a Christmas wish list.” In a book set to be released next month, Tillis branded Hegseth — along with a handful of other White House officials — as “MAGATS” and accused them of “not looking around corners and taking care of this president.”

It hasn’t earned him friends in the administration.

“The media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn’t brave, he was just the opposite – HE WAS A QUITTER!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in May. “Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!”

Congress

No immediate plans to punish rogue House Democrats for bailing out GOP

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Despite a stern message from party leaders, a panel of House Democrats did not settle on any particular consequences for the pair of lawmakers who crossed party lines Tuesday to advance an otherwise troubled slate of Republican-led bills.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and fellow leaders said the matter would be reviewed by the Democratic Committee on Caucus Rules, which convened Wednesday morning for a prescheduled listening session.

Attendees discussed possible changes to the rules that govern House Democrats’ conduct for next term. Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), the panel’s chair, suggested to reporters that discussion included what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures like the one Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) supported Tuesday.

“There’s been a variety of suggestions to change our rules, not just regarding the last couple days, but several suggestions that have been percolating for some time,” Levin said, while adding that any changes would happen only “in the next couple of months.”

The lack of urgency stands in contrast to the stern statement Jeffries and fellow leaders made Tuesday about the rogue members’ “breach of trust” — not to mention the rage some rank-and-file House Democrats are expressing. Some have floated removing the pair from their committees — particularly Gluesenkamp Perez’ seat on the exclusive Appropriations panel.

“Somebody else who is willing to think about other people needs to be on that seat, that exclusive committee,” said one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Jeffries, who was not present at the meeting, also seemed to have a speedier timeline for responding to Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden. He told reporters after the meeting wrapped that he was waiting on feedback from Levin and that the caucus would have conversations “amongst the family about the best way to move forward.”

Asked about his timeline for action against the pair, Jeffries said, “Sooner rather than later.”