Bulwark Takes – The Redistricting Twist No One Saw Coming

Host: Tim Miller (The Bulwark)
Guest: Dave Wasserman (Cook Political Report, Senior Editor and elections analyst)
Date: November 12, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the unexpected developments in the ongoing "mid-decade redistricting war," highlighting a dramatic series of legal and political twists that have altered House redistricting dynamics. Tim Miller and Dave Wasserman break down surprising Democratic victories, the shrinking partisan margin in redistricting, and the ramifications of new state court rulings—centered around a recent court decision in Utah that could secure Salt Lake City a congressional district for the first time in years.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The State of Play: Redistricting Landscape (00:53)

• GOP Motivation:
  • Republicans wouldn't be pushing so hard for mid-decade redistricting if they felt secure about the House in 2026. (01:40)
  • “Republicans want to sandbag this—add some insurance policy against a blue wave.” — Dave Wasserman (01:46)
  • Historical average: President’s party tends to lose 23 House seats in midterms, but heavy gerrymandering and voter self-sorting have changed the competitive landscape.
• Self-Sorting and Gerrymandering:
  • Tim notes a major reason for fewer competitive races: Americans self-sorting into like-minded communities, not just partisan map-drawing. (02:51)

2. Recent Democratic Wins: Where the Map’s Changed (03:00–07:00)

Ohio (03:52)

• Republicans aimed to erase Democratic seats, but activists threatened a petition and forced a compromise, leading to a much less partisan map:
  • “That really influenced Republicans to cut a deal ... I count that as only like a half a seat gain for Republicans on net.” — Dave Wasserman (04:34)
  • Tim gives credit to local Democratic leaders who led the fight.

Kansas (05:29)

• GOP abandoned efforts to unseat Democrat Sharice Davids.
• Election results prevented further GOP gerrymandering.

California (05:29)

• Prop 50: Passed by a “massive margin,” giving Democrats a shot at picking up at least three GOP seats, possibly five, especially in the Central Valley and San Diego.
  • “Democrats drew a map in California that serves them both offensively and defensively.” — Dave Wasserman (06:17)
• Unlike Texas, which was already safe for the GOP, California’s changes shore up Dems’ vulnerable seats and open offensive opportunities.

Virginia (06:29)

• Democrats won big in both the Attorney General and House of Delegates races — likely to allow a Democratic gerrymander (potentially 9-2, up from a 6-5 delegation).
• This gain could offset GOP wins in Florida or Indiana.

Utah (08:11, 19:29, 20:13)

• A court win is expected to create a Dem-favoring 3-1 map, centering Salt Lake City in its own district for the first time in years.

3. Net Impact: Is Redistricting Still a GOP Edge? (08:11–11:15)

• When combining Republican and Democratic gains across Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, California, and Utah, the expected GOP advantage shrank to nearly zero (“a net of nothing”—Tim Miller at 08:11).

• Key quote:

  • “So, that’s a net of nothing. Basically zero to one for Republicans.” — Tim Miller (08:11)

• Prospects for even or near-even maps depend on further changes in VA, MD, FL, IN.

  • “If both sides maximize their gerrymandering advantage... it might shake out to two or three extra seats for Republicans.” — Dave Wasserman (14:21)

4. Strategic Behavior: How Recent Democratic Wins Shifted GOP Calculus (10:27)

• After seeing Dems’ success, Republicans are more cautious about stretching their own advantage and risking incumbent losses:
  • “No one wants to be in a two and a half point race regardless.” — Dave Wasserman (11:26)

5. Key Battlegrounds Moving Forward (15:30–16:43)

• The true House majority will hinge less on gerrymandered states and more on competitive districts in:
  • Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa
• Only three Republicans remain in “Harris seats” (i.e., House districts won by Biden):
  • Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Mike Lawler (NY), Don Bacon (NE).

6. Legal Threats and the Voting Rights Act (16:43–19:29)

• The biggest existential threat to Democratic seats is the potential reversal of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court.
  • “It could mean the elimination of a dozen majority minority seats in the Deep South. I don’t think it’s hyperbole to call the potential apocalyptic.” — Dave Wasserman (19:17)
• Louisiana is readying for this possibility; most states would need the Court to move early to redraw maps before 2026.

7. Utah: A Rare “Good Governance” Breakthrough? (19:29–21:56)

• The Utah case is “a food fight,” with a state judge’s ruling undoing the GOP’s old ‘pizza’ map that splintered Salt Lake City voters. (20:13)
• Utah may net its first solid Democratic seat in years, but GOP state legislators are furious and may retaliate (even talking impeachment for the judge). Political stability is uncertain.
  • “In most cases these state supreme courts have become extensions of partisan politics. That hasn't been the case in Utah, so it makes it a fascinating exception.” — Dave Wasserman (21:56)

8. Rethinking Redistricting Fairness for 2030 (22:44–23:57)

• Dave’s new research explores a “middle ground” for drawing districts: aligning boundaries with existing counties.
  • “If both parties hate that solution, it might mean it’s fair.” — Dave Wasserman (23:54)
• Such rules could help major cities (like Salt Lake or Nashville) have representation, but might cut both ways politically depending on the state.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Republicans... want to sandbag this—add some insurance policy against a blue wave.”
  — Dave Wasserman (01:46)

• “That really influenced Republicans to cut a deal that led to a map that made two districts a little worse for Democrats in Cincinnati and Toledo, but made a district in Akron slightly better for Democrats. So I count that as only like a half a seat gain for Republicans on net.”
  — Dave Wasserman (04:34)

• “Democrats drew a map in California that serves them both offensively and defensively.”
  — Dave Wasserman (06:17)

• “So, that’s a net of nothing. Basically zero to one for Republicans.”
  — Tim Miller (08:11)

• “No one wants to be in a two and a half point race regardless.”
  — Dave Wasserman (11:26)

• “It could mean the elimination of a dozen majority minority seats in the Deep South. I don’t think it’s hyperbole to call the potential apocalyptic.”
  — Dave Wasserman (19:17)

• “In most cases these state supreme courts have become extensions of partisan politics. That hasn't been the case in Utah, so it makes it a fascinating exception.”
  — Dave Wasserman (21:56)

Important Timestamps

• 00:53 — State of play: why redistricting war is so hot
• 03:52–07:00 — Rundown of recent state-level wins/changes (Ohio, Kansas, California, Virginia, Utah)
• 08:11 — Net seat gains/losses across all states recap
• 14:21 — Scenarios if both parties maximize their redistricting advantage
• 16:43 — Competitive districts that will really decide the House
• 19:17 — What overturning the VRA could mean for Black-majority districts
• 20:13–21:56 — The unique Utah “ungerrymander” and what it signals
• 22:44–23:57 — Ideas for fairer district boundaries in 2030

Tone & Language

The episode is fast-paced, analytical, and conversational, balancing deep political nerdiness with a clear, accessible breakdown of big-picture trends. Tim Miller maintains a wry, often sardonic wit, while Dave Wasserman delivers precise, data-rich commentary, sprinkled with cautious optimism for reform and realism about partisanship and inertia.

Suggested Resources

• Cook Political Report Redistricting Tracker (cookpolitical.com): For up-to-date analysis and rankings on congressional districts.
• Previous Bulwark Takes Episode: Further discussion of Voting Rights Act issues on Tim’s podcast with Chris Hayes.
• Cook Political House Race Ratings: Dave recommends donating/supporting swing-seat candidates in tough districts.

For listeners new to redistricting news, this episode clarifies why shifts in a handful of states could reshape not only partisan control in 2026, but also the future rules of American political competition.