In state houses across the country, the political playing field is being redrawn. Overnight, the Texas House of Representatives approved the controversial new voting maps designed to help Republicans keep control of Congress in next year's midterm elections. President Donald Trump kicked off this effort when he urged Republican leaders in Texas to redraw congressional maps years ahead of schedule. That was the first domino, and more red states followed. Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe officially signing the controversial new congressional map into law today. North Carolina just the latest state to try and draw a new congressional map for the 2026 election, all in an effort to win control of the closely divided U.S. House. At the same time, Democratic states have been scrambling to offset those gains. We can make a projection in California. The polls are closed as of now, and CNN projects that Californians have indeed voted yes. on the state's newly drawn congressional district map, aiming to help Democrats. California's new map aims to cancel out Texas with five more Democratic seats. In his victory speech, the state's governor, Gavin Newsom, called on other blue states to join the effort. We need the state of Virginia. We need the state of Maryland. We need our friends in New York, in Illinois, in Colorado. We need to see other states, the remarkable leaders that have been doing remarkable things, meet this moment head on as well to recognize what we're up against in 2026. These new maps are all facing court challenges, and we don't know which ones will survive. Regardless, it's still an issue gaining a lot of traction in Colorado, with some leading Democrats saying they're ready to jump into the fray. I am not going to sit around and watch that just happen on my watch and go and do a battle with one arm tied behind my back. I'm not going to do it. I don't want Colorado to do this. I didn't want Texas to do this. What I want Colorado to make clear is that if necessary, we will do our part. I think this evolution process has been disturbing, And that's why I'm currently publicly supporting efforts to basically do the same thing here in Colorado. But it's not that simple. Colorado has strong guardrails on when and how its maps are drawn, meant to keep politics out of the process. Any changes to those rules would be slow, costly, and could carry a political risk. This is Purplish from CPR News and the Colorado Capital News Alliance. A show about Colorado politics and policy. I'm Benta Birkland. The state-by-state fight for mid-decade partisan redistricting has been raging for months. And Colorado keeps getting mentioned by Democrats desperate to find more seats. In this episode, we're going to take a look at what some Democrats hope could happen here and what stands in the way of that. I can think of no better person to join us on this journey than my colleague Caitlin Kim. She covers Colorado's congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. She knows this issue inside and out. Hey, Caitlin. Hi, Venta. So in normal times, congressional maps are only supposed to be redrawn once a decade after the census. And this is because each House district needs to roughly have the same number of people in it. And populations shift over time. But now, exactly in the middle of the decade, five years away from the census, states are racing to do this. Yes, and as we mentioned, this started when President Trump turned up the heat on Texas. He told CNBC over the summer that his party is, quote, entitled to more seats because he claimed blue states have unfairly gerrymandered maps. We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats. We have a really good governor and we have good people in Texas. And I won Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know. And we are entitled to five more seats. Going back to that rationale Trump is claiming, that he just wants to offset unfair gerrymandering by blue states. Princeton University has a gerrymandering tracker. And it does give low grades to some Democratic states like Illinois and Oregon. But it shows a lot more gerrymandered red states. And this is from before all of this recent back and forth started. So, I mean, gerrymandering is not a new issue. What Trump set off is actually, though, really unprecedented. And the stakes are high. There's such a narrow Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. And the party in power usually does poorly in the midterms. So things could look very different for his agenda over the next two years if Democrats can win back a political chamber, namely the House. And this is where Colorado comes in. You can see why Democrats wanted to redraw maps. It's a blue state. But Colorado's House delegation is evenly split. Four Republicans, four Democrats. It wouldn't take too much to really tilt these districts to Democrats' advantage. So with all that in play, that's why we're revisiting redistricting years before we ever thought we'd have to. To understand why Colorado Democrats can't just rush to put out some new maps, you first have to understand how redistricting works here. So back in 2018, voters approved setting up an independent redistricting commission with the idea that having citizens draw the maps would take politics out of the process. And it was a pretty big deal. The state legislature agreed unanimously to put this idea on the ballot as a constitutional amendment and voters passed this amendment by 70 percent. I mean, that's a really wide margin. Yes. And the amendment is really detailed. It requires 12 commission members split evenly between Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters. You know, these people aren't appointed by the political parties. There's actually a really complicated process to pick commissioners to ensure no one slips in as a ringer. And in 2021, the state used the commission for the first time. At 6.01, I will call this Colorado Independent Congressional Districting Commission meeting to order. The work wasn't easy. If you'll recall, the pandemic was still going on and the census data came out behind schedule. I have that KBCO song they play all the time caught in my head, that bittersweet. It's sweet then bitter, bitter then sweet. To where we are at in the cycle right now, in the process. These meetings were public. They're streamed online because one of the big values from this amendment was transparency. No backroom deals. Commissioners couldn't meet or talk privately. Instead, they held meetings all across the state and gave the public a chance to weigh in on what was important for them. The new potential District 8 includes Broomfield and some front-range Plains towns, whereas I think Greeley would be a better fit with those towns. You put CD5 all in El Paso County. Where is the line of demarcation that you've cut off the southeast part of the district? The people on the Western Slope deserve to have a representative who lives on the Western Slope and understands their concerns. The amendment also sets criteria for how the district should be formed. Yes, on a basic level, districts have to contain the same number of people, have contiguous borders, and comply with the Voting Rights Act. They're also supposed to be as compact as practical and try to keep cities and counties whole as much as possible, like not splitting up Denver seven different ways. Yes and they also supposed to preserve communities of interest which is sort of an abstract idea But as we heard from the tape could be an example of trying to keep farmers on the eastern plains together in a district or keeping Hispanic communities in southern Colorado together And finally, the commission was tasked with creating as many swing districts as possible. I'm not troubled by putting Custer in CD3, but I am troubled by the imbalance in the competitiveness. This requirement that Colorado has to maximize competitive districts is unique. Even other states with independent commissions don't have to do that. Yeah, and while that's true, I would also stress it's the last criteria on the list. And that 2021 process led to a final map that had four Democratic seats, three Republican ones, and just one swing seat. I mean, I think that's right. There's one true, true toss-up in this state. But some of Colorado's other districts are somewhat competitive at times. Colorado District 7 got less blue in the new maps. And history suggests CD3 might be flippable. Lauren Boebert almost lost that seat. And you and I have had a lot of discussions about this and how much of, you know, CD3 was made flippable because of candidate quality. You know, the Lauren Boebert effect. But to your bigger point, you know, if you get a wave year, maybe some of these seats could be in play. But to get us back on redistricting track, I do want to get into some reporting I've been doing recently, talking with a bunch of the commissioners that served in that 2021 process. Carly Hare chaired the commission. She was an unaffiliated voter and says the constitutional amendment really did give them clear direction, which made their very difficult job a little bit easier. It gave us not a direct blueprint because we had to build the plane while we were flying it the entire time. But it did give us some framing and some guideposts to stay within and really allowed us to be expansive inside of that in different ways. Over the years, Colorado has received praise for how it draws its maps relatively free of political interference. In fact, the Princeton Gerrymandering Project gave the state an A in partisan fairness. We should do this in a way that other people can see and replicate. And I think the only way to replicate is to offer transparency. That's Julie Bronner. She was the commission's vice chair and another unaffiliated voter. No one was 100 percent happy with us, but I think that's because we actually listened to people and tried to come up with the most equitable maps we could. This is something I heard from a lot of the commissioners that I spoke with, that they were really trying to be, as Republican Commissioner Bill Leone put it, relentlessly nonpartisan. If somebody said, well, we need to have more districts that are going to be Democrat districts or more districts that are going to be Republican districts, we tamp that down very quickly because we weren't trying to get to a preordained outcome. One thing I'll note, though, is that the maps the Independent Commission finally picked did leave quite a few Democrats unhappy. They felt that it sacrificed fair representation in the name of competitiveness. Basically, Colorado's solidly blue. But the map created the possibility of a politically balanced House delegation, which is exactly what we have right now. But at the end of the day, the people I spoke with who have been involved in this process say they were chosen to represent Colorado voters, draw fair maps, and that those maps were meant to last for 10 years until we have new census data. That's the process and the goal. I can imagine the people closely involved with Colorado's process are watching what's happening nationally with redistricting very closely. I don't expect they're happy with what they're seeing. Yes, the people that I talked to, some of the words they used to describe this push for mid-cycle redistricting were disappointed, angry. And they all say it's bad for democracy. I asked Paula Espinosa, a Democrat who served on the commission about it. She said it was disheartening to her as an individual to see such efforts happening around the country. To use these districts as a means to sway one party or another is not the American way, in my opinion. I think that the idea of congressional districts is to fairly and to the most extent possible represent the people of that district and their interests. And that should be the goal, not to swing the country one way or another. One thing we should be clear about is this same constitutional amendment that sets the rules for redistricting in Colorado also says the state only gets to do it once a decade right after the census. Yeah, and it's not just in the amendment. Even before that passed, the state Supreme Court had already ruled against mid-cycle redistrictings in Colorado. That's just another reason why Colorado, unlike Texas or other states, lawmakers can't just throw out the current map and vote in something new. Even as some Colorado elected officials are talking about wanting to join the redistricting fight, they're up against a really daunting logistical reality. When you put redistricting rules in your constitution, you have to go back to the constitution and to the voters if you want to change it. That said, the recent vote in California shows those kind of obstacles can be overcome if there's enough political will. Whether that could happen in Colorado is what we're going to get to next. This is Purplish from CPR News and the Colorado Capital News Alliance. You love podcasts to keep up with the news. Now there's an easy way to find out what's happening in Colorado every day. The Colorado Today podcast is new from the same trusted source that brings you Purplish. You'll get the top stories, on-the-ground reporting, and moments of curiosity. Follow Colorado Today for the statewide news you need each weekday on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Purplish from CPR News and the Colorado Capital News Alliance. I think it's safe to say if you're the Democratic Party and you're hunting for seeds to give you an edge in this redistricting battle, Colorado has to be a real thorn in your side. Yeah, like we've said, Colorado seems to be a more and more solidly blue state. Kamala Harris won the state by 11 points, but you've got a perfectly split delegation. And unless there's a huge blue wave next year, Democrats can only really hope to flip one seat on the current map. And like California, it would take a public vote to replace the current map. The soonest it could get on ballots is next fall. Too late for the midterm election. But there are people trying to do that. It's been a really grassroots kind of thing, and it's really early in the process. There are people pushing a measure that would let the governor temporarily appoint a redistricting commission to draw new lines before the next census. So this proposal hasn't been approved yet to start gathering signatures for the ballot. Even if it does get approved, getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot generally takes millions of dollars to pull off. and also running a campaign is extremely expensive. So far, there doesn't seem to be any real money behind this. Going back to California, Benta, it was the legislature that got their redistricting measure on the ballot. Could that be a route for that to happen in Colorado? Technically, yes, but it takes a supermajority in each chamber to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Right now, Democrats are one vote shy of a supermajority in both the House and the Senate. I think it's fair to assume Republicans are not going to help Democrats in this type of effort. That means the legislature just isn't an option next year. I also think it's notable that Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, you know, has given the idea of mid-cycle redistricting the cold shoulder He said that voters will ultimately punish the party that tries it which in Colorado would be Democrats And this is what he told a progressive podcaster earlier this year This is the kind of blatant power grab that voters you know unaffiliated voters of both parties they just consider it the height of arrogance for politicians. But Povost doesn't speak for all Democrats in the state. There are others taking a different stance. Attorney General Phil Weiser, who's running for governor in 2026, is the highest profile Democrat so far to say he would support early redistricting to help offset changes in Republican states. And before Weiser, former Democratic Congressman Yadira Caraveo, who used to represent that swing seat, said Colorado should go forward with redistricting. At the time, she was running for her old seat, but she dropped out not too long afterward. I'm just curious, Obentip, what's Weiser's argument for supporting redistricting mid-cycle? Well, when I talked to him about it, he said he didn't come to the decision lightly because he does support independent commissions. He ultimately doesn't want Colorado to gerrymander. What I want Colorado to make clear is that if necessary, we will do our part and we will be willing to be a counterbalance to others who are seeking to gain an unfair advantage, thereby preventing that unfair advantage from happening. I do believe that Colorado's commitment to be a counterbalance is a factor that will influence other states. So just to sum up, it sounds like what Weiser is saying is just the threat of Colorado doing mid-cycle redistricting could prevent other red states from doing it. But I'm kind of curious, did Weiser say he'd actually work to raise money for a redistricting campaign? He said he raised his hand to be part of a coalition, but he thought it would have to be a grassroots effort. And Weiser isn't the only party official who's backing it right now. Congressman Jason Crow recently told our colleague Ryan Warner that he thinks the state should pause its independent commission. The abuse and the assault in our democracy by this administration and their attempt to try to stack the deck in their favor going into the election season. I am not going to sit around and watch that just happen on my watch and go and do a battle with one arm tied behind my back. I'm not going to do it. But Crowe did not say if he'd help get funding for it, which is really going to be a big barrier here. Yeah, it took some big money to get California's Prop 50 passed. And there are people willing to spend that kind of money in Colorado. I think they're going to have to get involved pretty quickly. So there are the practical barriers, the money, the logistics. But let's talk a bit about the political ramifications of Democrats trying to redraw Colorado's map. Haitlin, what do you see as the political upshot for taking this position? Is it just pandering to an angry partisan base? You know, I think in part, yes. Look, there are Democrats who want to see their elected leaders push back a lot more on Trump. And when they see Republican states that didn't adopt independent redistricting commissions help Trump stack the deck in favor of Republicans in the House so that they can stay in power. Well, let's just say the days of when they go low and we go high are no more. Because now a lot of Democrats are saying if they go low, we should go low, too. I heard some of that anger and frustration when I talked with Broomfield City Councilman Kenny Wynn. He's running for a seat in the statehouse. He's a younger Democrat. He's 31. And he said a lot of people in his generation want to see their party fighting. It is going to take a lot of income, a lot of grassroots organizing. But I do see that a lot of young people, at least in the Democratic Party, they're mobilizing. They want to do something about this. And I applaud that because, you know, as someone who's also young, like there is a it feels like there is an imbalance. We've been talking about the nitty gritty of redrawing maps and what could happen in Colorado. But fundamentally, what's happening in this state by state fight really has no historic precedent. And a lot of people find it an incredibly unsettling place to be. To talk about the bigger picture, we've asked Larry Kaplow to join us. Larry is a senior editor on NPR's National Desk in Washington. He edits statehouse reporters from across the country, and he has been following redistricting. Hey, Larry, thanks so much for joining us on Purplish. Hi, great to be here. So, Larry, one thing we haven't really gotten into yet is why. Why is Trump pushing for all this? Well, he's acknowledged that the stakes are his agenda, everything from tariffs to immigration crackdowns to cutting federal government. It's the control of the U.S. House and the control of Congress. Usually the party in power in the White House loses seats in the midterm elections. The Trump administration lost seats in 2018 in that midterm, and the Democrats took over the House and went on to impeach him. So Trump sees this as very important for his administration and what he wants to do. Beyond the politics of all of this, what do you see is at stake for the future? Well, in addition to the immediate questions about will Trump be able to carry out his program, there's the longer question about how we vote and do elections here. You know, over the last couple of decades, groups that wanted more independent districts, less politics drawn into how we do our voting. They had made a lot of progress on setting up commissions in many states where politicians weren't as involved, and they would draw the congressional map and the legislative maps. Colorado, as you've talked about, is one of the states that did that. Now we might be breaking that norm where states just redistrict anytime they want after any election. It gets at the very fundamental question, you know, ideally voters are picking the politicians, not the politicians picking the voters. Larry, if, and this is a big if, Colorado gets into this redistricting war and passes an initiative to draw more blue seats in the state, how much of a difference would that actually make nationally? I mean, Colorado isn't a huge state population-wise. We only have eight House seats. Right. And Colorado can't change its maps in time for the election in November of 2026. But it's looking at this question as there's a national debate, discussion, struggle going on. So it can influence that debate. I think there's some Democrats who hope that even if states can't do it for the 2026 election, Democratic states, they can hint that they might do it for the 2028 election. That could deter Republicans from wanting to go ahead with it even this year when they can. And I will note an interesting development in that line over the last week or so. Republicans in Kansas and Indiana have been saying they don't want to go along with President Trump's urging that they do their redistricting. Why do you think they're hesitant to do that? You know, they each have sort of specific reasons. For one thing, it's all connected. So if you're a Republican in Congress and they change districts anywhere else in your state, they're probably going to change your district. And that could make it harder for you to get elected. Some legislators at the state level say their constituents just don't want to get into this. And they would rather listen to their constituents than listen to what they're being told to do out of the White House. And President Trump spoke out about those Republicans who are hesitant to go ahead with the redistricting in Indiana and said he would try to mount primary challenges against them unless they came around and vote for redistricting. Wow. So a lot of political pressure to fall in line. One of the things I think a lot of Republicans have been worried about are court challenges to these new maps, these redrawn maps. And as we're talking now, a federal judge has blocked this new map that Texas redrew. We don't know whether or not that decision will stand, but it does put into question how the courts are looking at all these efforts to redistrict. At the heart of that case the Republicans were saying they redrew the maps for partisan gain which is legal in Texas and not to commit racial gerrymandering that they separated race They were just going after politics. What the court said was that they actually were racially gerrymandering in an illegal way, even if their goal was to get the political gain. Those two things overlap, and it makes one of the things that makes redistricting very difficult. So, Larry, can you just give us an overview of how many more Republican states are considering drawing lines before the 2026 election new maps? Right. So as we do the math, let's start out remembering that the U.S. House is very close. Let's say Texas can redistrict their five seats. We don't know that they'll be able to. The judge panel has blocked that. But say they get their five seats and then North Carolina redistricted that would help them win one seat. Missouri Republicans redistricted to help them win one more seat. Now, that's also facing some serious challenges, but that gets you to seven. Ohio had to redistrict because of some expiration on the map they had in state law, and that could help them win two more seats. So that's nine. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, he's a Republican. He's vowing that Florida will redistrict to get at least a couple more seats. So let's say that's 11 or 12 around that in the Republican column if they can hold on to Texas. And Larry, what about the Democratic side? You know, there is California. Right. So California, to counter Texas, has drawn a map that would win, help Democrats win five seats there. And then in a very unusual situation, Utah, even though it's a Republican-led state, had a court order that they had to redistrict, and that will help Democrats win the first seat in Utah. So that's five plus one. That's six. And Virginia lawmakers are looking at maybe a couple others. That would be a long process they have to do quickly at the start of the year. But that could get you up to eight. In Maryland, the Democratic governor is not taking it off the table for a seat there. That could be nine. So if you step back, it could be the Republicans getting an advantage in 10 to 12 seats and the Democrats in maybe 8 to 10. I think there's kind of a perception out there that Democratic states are at a disadvantage, in part because more blue states have rules like Colorado that make it harder to just impose new maps quickly. Is that true? It is true to some extent. The main thing is Republicans control more state legislatures in this country than Democrats do. So that gives them the power to do this. And then there are a few more Democratic states than Republican states that have extra hoops and guardrails on redistricting that make it illegal to partisan gerrymander or that require that the redistricting is done by an independent commission. So all those things combined have given the Republicans a few more avenues at this than the Democrats have. Right. And Larry, I think another thing we also have to take into account here is the challenge, again, another one to the Voting Rights Act that's currently before the Supreme Court. Right. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case about the Voting Rights Act that could end up loosening some of the laws against racial gerrymandering and maybe open up a door for some other Republican states to redistrict. As we've been reporting on this and just talking to you, Larry, just reminds me once again how complex this topic is and how one thing may not lead to the outcome a particular party wants. Yes, there's such a thing called a dummy mander, like not gerrymander, but dummy mander, where a party tries to redraw seats for its benefit, but ends up either because of how the elections turn out or how court rulings turn out, losing seats in the House. I think this is part of the issue, Larry, that you're getting at, which is people are drawing or redrawing these maps based on past election results when they might not be the same going forward in this next election. And I think that's what voters and probably like our listeners really want to know is they're likely really to be a clear winner between the parties in this redistricting war or are things on track to be a bit of a wash? Well, like you alluded to, we'll find out in the elections. Maybe in the redistricting, the Republicans just net a couple more seats to their advantage than the Democrats can draw. But two seats could decide the control of the House in a House that's as close as it is. On the other hand, if there's a wave, if one party really is riding a groundswell of support, those two seats won't make the difference. Thank you so much, Larry, for coming on and sharing your insights and your reporting. Thank you. Before we say our final goodbyes, I have a quick update to share from our recent episode about Colorado's Statehouse building and the various collections inside it. On our tour of the Capitol, we visited the third floor rotunda, which has a collection of presidential portraits from President Trump, who, if you remember, was not a big fan of his original portrait, all the way back to George Washington. Amanda Clapham, who is part of the Capitol's nonpartisan visitor services staff, presented the committee in charge of the Capitol building with some options for the rotunda, including an exhibition that features photos of state lawmakers. You know, she described the Rotunda as a place of reflection for Capitol visitors, especially the many, many school field trips there. Why wouldn't we use that same space to, like, elevate the people who are working here very regularly doing the business of the people of Colorado? Thank you, Ms. Clapham. The Capitol Committee agreed and the state will take down the presidential portraits at least through 2026. They will be replaced with pictures of lawmakers. All 100 of them. Yes, and not just a current photo. Every member will also include a childhood photo and then a blurb about what drew them to public office. It's going to be part of Colorado's 150th statehood anniversary. That passes. Nine to two. So thank you, everybody, for discussing this, for thinking about it. So 200 portraits replacing about less than 50 presidential portraits. Yeah, they're not going to be that big, you know, to fit everyone in there and their childhood photo. I'm definitely curious to see what those childhood photos look like. All right. Well, Benta, what happens to the presidential portraits? I think the long-term fate of those portraits and where they hang in the Capitol, if they hang in the Capitol, is still an open-ended question. And this committee will have to take it up again next year. That's it for this episode. Purplish is a production of member-supported Colorado Public Radio and the Colorado Capital News Alliance. The CCNA is a collaboration between KUNC News, Colorado Public Radio, Rocky Mountain PBS, and the Colorado Sun with support from news outlets throughout the state. Funding for the alliance is provided in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I'm Caitlin Kim. And I'm Benta Birkeland. Our producer is Stephanie Wolfe and our editor is Megan Verlee. Sound design and engineering by Shane Rumsey. Our theme music is by Brad Turner. Thanks again to NPR's Larry Kaplow for joining us and sharing his reporting. And a big shout out to Rachel Estabrook, who's led the podcast team this past year and is leaving CPR at the end of the month. Thanks for your leadership. Purplish will be back in your feeds in a few weeks. So subscribe now so you have something to be thankful for. and you don't miss an episode. This is Purplish from CPR News and the Colorado Capital News Alliance.
