The California Plan to Redistrict for 2026 is a Pipe Dream, and Here’s Why

If you’re looking for doom and inaccurate information, slide right on past my article. If you’d like facts, law, and realism, read on.

On Monday, I published a column ridiculing DNC Chairman Ken Martin for his “woe is me” approach to the 2026 midterms and suggestion that it is the Republican Party, not the Democrats, who engages in election rigging on a grand scale. Prior to hammering Martin over vote manipulation, I made my case on systemic cheating that corrupts the entire election environment before any votes are cast:

You say Texas is tipping the scales for the GOP. Texas is hoping to pick up 5 Republican seats, of which I am confident 4 are good to go and the fifth is likely. If they get all 5, they’ll have 30 of 38 seats under GOP control, or 78.9%. Now, let’s compare to California, your mother ship people can’t wait to escape from. 43 of 52 seats are Democrat-held, or 82.7%. Where is the outrage over this?

Better yet, why don’t we discuss the allocation itself, with Texas having been undercounted, along with several other red states, and blue states having been systemically overcounted and holding the lion’s share of illegals to bloat U.S. Census numbers against the interests of American citizens? I have your party at 12 to 16 electoral votes (and representatives) too strong based on a realistic understanding of the population shifts in America and the government’s own admittedly inaccurate (fraudulent) data.

Democrats are rallying around their blue fortresses, particularly California, to push back against not only Ohio and Texas, but the possibility that Florida, Missouri, and Indiana may consider mid-decade redistricting to aid in holding the Republican majority in the U.S. House. At worst, I see Texas and Ohio combining to net six Republican seats; Florida has room for three I can see at a quick glance, and Missouri (MO-5, bordering two R+44 districts) and Indiana (IN-1, bordering two districts ranging R+28 to R+34) not more than one each. It seems proper to close this paragraph by reminding you that NE-2 (metro Omaha) is perhaps the most poorly drawn district any group of Republicans has ever come up with.

If my range of 11 to 13 seats picked up by the five GOP states above is accurate, the odds of Republicans holding the House suddenly go sky-high. Here’s how things shape up in the three big Democrat states talking a big game about their own redistricting:

• California 43D/9R

• Illinois 14D/3R

• New York 19D/7R

Before tackling the Golden State problem, let me first address Illinois and New York. There is absolutely no room for even a single Democrat pickup in Illinois. Two of the GOP seats were won uncontested in 2024, and the other (IL-12) is a GOP vote dump in Southern Illinois won by 49%. That state is fully gerrymandered. In New York, I think the Democrats could eliminate Mike Lawler from NY-17, but they can’t knock off NY-1 without jeopardizing NY-3 and NY-4. Their margins are simply too thin to make more than one seat flip, and they may not look at that as a valid option with inevitable blowback over a petty gain.

That leaves California and blowhard Gavin Newsom to rattle sabers in defense of the great struggle. If Newsom and his legislative accomplices were to find a way to rid themselves of all 9 GOP U.S. House members (impossible), successful redistricting in the 5 red states mentioned here would still pick up net seats for the Republicans (likely 2 to 4). There are two giant considerations that are going to prevent Newsom from living up to Democrat expectations to hold the line:

---

I. California Law

Any plans Newsom may have are likely stillborn by virtue of state law; yes, you’ve read that correctly. California, unlike with its election laws, has other very restrictive laws that will almost certainly prevent any redistricting from occurring prior to the next decade.

In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 11, which created the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CCRC) to handle state legislative boundaries, and two years later, expanded its power to include federal district boundaries by approving Proposition 20. A constitutional amendment would be needed to strip the CCRC of its responsibilities.

Newsom has just two options, both of which he has floated. The first is to argue there is no constitutional provision prohibiting a mid-decade redistricting. This would be a certain loser in court, as there is no way to put it other than the CCRC has been vested with all authority for establishing California’s legislative boundaries.

The second option Newsom has is to compel the legislature to propose a special measure (requires two-thirds majority) and hold a special election to allow for a workaround to the standard CCRC process. He is working on a tight timeline and faces steep challenges in getting this done politically and then would need to win the vote.

If Newsom were to succeed in having his way, I’d put my chips down on the second option as the mechanism, and not with high odds.

---

II. Precious Little Slack to Work With