Podcast Summary: The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

Episode: It's a Numbers Game: The Numbers Behind Gerrymandering in California
Date: August 21, 2025
Host: Brian Graduski (guest hosting)
Network: iHeartPodcasts

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into the history, mechanics, and current political implications of gerrymandering in California, particularly in light of Governor Gavin Newsom and state Democrats unveiling a new congressional redistricting map. Host Brian Graduski breaks down the historical roots of partisan redistricting, analyzes how California's new map reshapes representation, and discusses the ongoing battles between Democrats and Republicans over political power in the Golden State.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Current State of Gerrymandering in California

• Context: California has 52 congressional districts—the largest in the nation.
  • Under the current map, Democrats hold 43 seats; Republicans have nine.
  • In the 2024 election, President Trump won the popular vote in 11 districts, but Republicans only represent nine.
  • Example: Two Democratic congressmen, Adam Gray (CA-13) and Josh Harder (CA-9), represent districts that Trump carried, revealing a disparities in party representation.
    "Trump won 38% of the statewide vote. Republicans hold just 19% of the seats. It's one of actually the most extreme partisan gerrymanders when you look at it like that." (04:31)

2. Historical Recap: Who Started Gerrymandering?

• Background: The host refutes the popular notion that Republicans "started" gerrymandering:
  • 1991 Redistricting: Out of 435 U.S. House seats, Republicans had full control over redistricting for just five seats. Democrats held 138.
  • States like New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Maryland, and Virginia were under Democratic control, allowing manipulation to favor Democrats.
  • Even during Republican presidential victories, congressional seats in major states didn’t reflect Republican voter strength.
  • Democrats deployed gerrymandering to safeguard their majority for decades.

  "They purposely carved up Texas six ways from Sunday... ensuring that Democrats would win 53% of all seats in super safe districts, despite the fact that Republican congressional candidates won 53% of the popular vote in the state." — Brian Graduski [10:14]

3. The California Redistricting Playbook

• The Burton Brothers: Philip and John Burton, Democratic powerbrokers, masterminded California's gerrymanders in the 80s and 90s.
  • 1981 Map: Crafted to maximize Democratic seats, cited by the New York Times as cheating Republicans of House representation.
  • 1991 Map: Built on previous gerrymanders, with the help of Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, Republican Gov. Pete Wilson’s veto forced the courts to intervene—maps that essentially protected incumbent Democrats remained.

  "Democrats used the Voting Rights Act, Section 2, and partisan gerrymandering and lawsuits to protect the map because they thought it would prevent the impossibility of Republicans winning back the House in the 90s." — Brian Graduski [13:17]

4. The Myth of the 1994 Republican Revolution

• Graduski contends that the 1994 shift of House control wasn’t due to Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America, but to backlash against Hillary Clinton’s healthcare proposals ("HillaryCare").

  "The reason that Republicans won was not so much to do with Newt Gingrich or his Contract With America. It was to do with Hillary Clinton and her attempt to take over the nation's health care system with HillaryCare." [15:23]

• He emphasizes that Democrats had historically held the levers of redistricting:

  "People imagine that there's this time when people didn't use political power to influence congressional redistricting and they are living in a fantasy." [17:35]

5. Analysis of Newsom's 2025 Redistricting Map

(see [21:50] for the start of the discussion on the new map)

• Major Changes:

  • Four Republican districts would move from "lean/likely Republican" to "safe Democrat."
    • LaMalfa: Trump +25 → Harris +12
    • Kiley: Trump +4 → Harris +10
    • Issa: Trump +15 → Harris +3
    • Calvert: Trump +6 → Harris +14
  • Some Republican districts become ultra-safe (Trump +12 → Trump +30).
  • Senate leader Mike McGuire is accused of drawing himself a safe Democratic seat, paralleling historic self-serving maneuvers.

• Democratic Strategy:

  • Instead of eliminating up to 6 or 7 GOP seats, Democrats aim to fortify vulnerable incumbents in swing districts, reflecting caution amid changing demographics.
  • Notable statistic: Since the 2024 election, California Republicans gained 138,000 new registrants vs. 12,000 for Democrats. Independents gained most at 155,000.

    "Politics is not a pond. It is not stagnant, it is a river. It is changing every day... Vibes change, parties change." [23:50]

6. Potential Risks: “Gerrymander” or “Dummymander”?

• Shifting Political Ground:

  • The Democrats’ map is more “aggressive and sloppy” than the GOP’s Texas map.
  • If California continues trending more Republican (even a 5 to 10-point shift over the next cycles), several Democratic seats could become competitive, or even flip.
  • The aggressive gerrymander could inadvertently imperil Democratic incumbents—a “dummymander.”

  “If the state shifts half the rate as it did over the last eight years... then Democrats doomed a lot of their own incumbents, including incumbents who just gave up tons of Democratic voters... It might not work for anybody.” [27:01]

• Enactment & Challenges:

  • Democrats have a super-majority and can pass the map through the state legislature.
  • To enact, Newsom must place it as a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
    • Former Governor Schwarzenegger and Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy committed ~$150 million to fight the measure.
    • A UC Berkeley poll found voters oppose Newsom’s plan 64–36%.

    “It could ultimately backfire on Democrats and their efforts to redistrict.” [28:40]

    • Graduski notes the 2026 redistricting is a prelude to Newsom's real aim: fortifying Democratic prospects (including his own) ahead of 2028.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Partisan History:

  “Even in 1991, the New York Times... said California in the 80s... was carved up and gerrymandered to support Democratic congressmen.” — Brian Graduski [09:41]

• Strategic Parallels:

  “Remember when I told you that in Texas back in the 1990s, state senator Eddie Bernice Johnson gerrymandered herself a majority-black district... That same exact thing is happening in California today.” — Brian Graduski [22:55]

• On Newsom’s Motives:

  “In the end, I don't think Newsom cares so much about this map for 2026 because it's not about 2026, it's about 2028. It's about whether or not he will or won't be the Democratic nominee...” — Brian Graduski [29:14]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:57] — Episode Introduction and Context
• [04:31] — California's Disproportional Representation
• [06:45] — History of Gerrymandering: 1991 Redistricting Primer
• [10:14] — Texas' 1990s Gerrymander Explained
• [13:17] — The Burton Brothers and California’s 1981/91 Gerrymanders
• [15:23] — 1994 House Takeover: Clinton vs. Gingrich
• [17:35] — Persistent Power Imbalances in U.S. Politics
• [21:50] — Detailed Analysis of Newsom's Proposed 2025 Map
• [23:50] — California’s Political Shifts and Registration Trends
• [27:01] — Potential for "Dummymander": Long-Term Risks
• [28:40] — Ballot Fight, Public Opinion, and Republican Opposition
• [29:14] — Newsom’s Political Ambitions

Q&A: Ask Me Anything (Post-content Highlights)

• Senate without 17th Amendment:

  • If state legislatures still chose senators, Republicans would hold 62 seats, Democrats 38.
  • Map details: Midwest, Georgia, and Arizona would flip Republican; Maine would be Democratic.
  • Alaska and Minnesota have split partisan tendencies.

• Colorado’s “Blue” Shift:

  • Decline in energy jobs (from 33k→20k) is minor compared to broader forces: progressive migration and changes in lifestyle attracting left-leaning populations.

Conclusion

This episode offers a rich, critical look at gerrymandering in California—rooted in history, but laser-focused on current maneuvers and their future impact. Graduski’s detailed breakdown connects past and present, puncturing partisan myths and highlighting the complex dance between demography, districting, and electoral outcomes. The episode is essential listening for anyone looking to understand the true numbers behind redistricting battles.