With Virginia’s redistricting vote, Democrats now have the advantage | The Excerpt

On the Friday, April 24, 2026, episode of The Excerpt podcast: The latest news in the redistricting arms race between Republicans and Democrats saw voters narrowly approve a new map in Virginia that could advantage the Dems by up to four new seats. USA TODAY Chief Political Correspondent Phillip M. Bailey joins The Excerpt to share his insights.

Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Dana Taylor:

The latest news in the redistricting arms race between Republicans and Democrats saw voters narrowly approve a new map in Virginia that could advantage the Dems by up to four new seats. Although there's an injunction on that election. If it is certified, that would bring the total number of states with new district maps heading into the midterms up to seven. But Republicans may have more cards to play with a several seat advantage possible in Trump's home state of Florida. Stepping back, could the midterm results end up being a referendum on tactics rather than politics?

Hello and welcome to USA TODAY's The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Friday, April 24th, 2026. Join me now to discuss what comes next in this national redistricting battle for the House as USA TODAY Chief Political Correspondent Philip M. Bailey. Philip, it's always great to speak with you.

Phillip M. Bailey:

Hey, how are you?

Dana Taylor:

I'm great. Thank you. Philip, we talked about the role redistricting was playing in state elections last November, but I think it's worth revisiting now following Virginia Democrats successful bid to redraw their congressional district map. What was your biggest takeaway from that election last Tuesday?

Phillip M. Bailey:

Well, look, President Trump started this fight, but he certainly, I think, won't be finishing it. Democrats, and perhaps because of their progressive base really urging them to get into the fight and not be on the sidelines as much. This gerrymandering war that he started, he's losing at this point.

Remember, this started last year when the president urged Texas lawmakers and the legislature there to take on a mid-decade redistricting, which is a very unusual move. So they basically had their state redo their maps, and I believe he arm-twisted other Republican-led states, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and such. And look, Democrats basically said, "We're going to fight fire with fire." And they undertook the same tactic in California and now most recently in Virginia.

What this looks like now, Dana, is that while Republicans have added about nine seats according to trackers overall and those across those different states, it looks like Democrats are going to add about 10.

Now, look, the Virginia situation, their referendum is already in the courts. It's already being challenged legally, much of the same way that Proposition 50 in California was. But the big takeaway from this is that President Trump's tactic here seems to be backfiring. And you're already seeing some Republicans in the House and other officials and thinkers in the Republican Party arguing against this saying, maybe this wasn't a great idea, maybe we should not escalate this fight. So looks like President Trump's overall war here that he started as far as gerrymandering is concerned is backfiring.

Dana Taylor:

Now let's turn to my state, Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis has already called a special legislative session to consider a new congressional map. What does Florida's process look like and would it possibly be challenged in courts?

Phillip M. Bailey:

Look, Governor DeSantis, a former presidential candidate himself, he's facing immense pressure from the White House and Congressional Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, to go forward with a special session down in Florida to redo their maps as well, which could add anywhere between three to five seats. It should be added right now that Florida's 28 congressional district seats, about 20 of them are already held by Republicans similar to in Virginia where they have a majority Democratic delegation, which was go from six seats to five seats, I think to 10 to one for Democrats in Virginia. So here is that, look, Republicans could add three to five seats in Florida. They already have 20 of those seats.

Now, Governor DeSantis seems to have waffled a bit, maybe showing some concerns from other Republicans and that he delayed the call for the special session for about a week. It was House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, leader of the Democrats who used some pretty subtle explicit language saying that, "Look, we're going to fight back here. If Florida wants to enter this fight, we'll keep going."

So we'll see what happens. I know that this special session in Florida Governor DeSantis is calling, may have other issues that they add to it like the budget, maybe some AI regulations, but certainly there's expectation from the White House to others that the redrawing of the maps will be included in that. If there's already warnings from, again, Republicans say they may want to rethink this, that if you add those seats and change that congressional lines, it could dilute some of those seats that are held by those 20 Republicans.

Now it could see a situation where we see some Republicans running against each other. And here's the other thing, Dana, that's really important to know about, as you know about your home state of Florida. Back in 2010, voters approved a constitutional amendment, came out and voted on this almost 15 or 16 years ago saying that they wanted a constitutional amendment, which explicitly prohibits line drawing that deliberately is designed to benefit one party or the other or hurt a political party or the other, and it certainly isn't meant to help incumbent officeholders.

So Democrats have already signaled that they too would respond very much to how Republicans of Virginia are by taking this to court. So we're all waiting to see what Governor DeSantis might do. There are already Democratic groups that have shipped in protestors down there to the state capitol in Tallahassee, making sure that they're going to try to hold those lawmakers accountable.

This gerrymandering war I think is very unprecedented to see both parties engaging in this. I know there's a lot of good government civic leaders who are concerned, but now that it's shifting to Florida, we could see a further escalation before November.

Dana Taylor:

This redistricting battle really started off with Republicans hoping to create a firewall, to stave off defeat in the midterms. Philip, do you think there's possibly some buyer's remorse here because of Democrats' unexpected response?

Phillip M. Bailey:

Look, I think you're already seeing, I'm not even saying moderate, but certainly Republicans who are facing tough reelections in swing districts beginning to speak out. I think of Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania, which was one of the seats to watch to see how bad this alleged or forecasted blue wave for Democrats might be for Republicans.

Donald Trump knows how important it is to hold on to Congress. He faced this and he was impeached twice in his first term. He's very aware. And look, for this past year, Democrats have been on the winning streak despite taking a pummeling and being surprised by the 2024 results. So the President is aware of how important it is to keep Congress, and he's still going to do that by any means necessary. But there are Republicans, Ari Fleischer, former Press Secretary under George W. Bush, said this fight should have been started in the first place.

Donald Trump's tactician skills are really being questioned. I think, Dana, it's also important to notice that this is happening at a time when President Trump's approval ratings are dropping drastically, not just among Democrats, not just among independent voters, but even you're starting to see a larger portion of Republicans have a high disapproval, at least for them at least, of the President.

He's facing record lows for his second term. The war with Iran is certainly isn't helping him. The affordability crisis hasn't been fully addressed or tackled. So as the president's overall popularity wanes, how many more of these Republicans are willing to go along with him? You're already beginning to see cracks in that base.

Dana Taylor:

Control of the House following November's elections would come with gavel authority. If Democrats succeed in taking the House, what kinds of levers would they have access to for the second half of Trump's term?

Phillip M. Bailey:

You certainly, I don't think we'll see any sort of grand legislation come if Democrats were to win back the House. I think it's really going to be an issue of holding the President accountable and perhaps having an equal or more say in the government. Right now Democrats are completely powerless in Washington. Again, these forecasted elections where there's this blue wave and you're seeing more of these races shifted from forecasters in Democrats' favor.

You're right to say that number one, it's going to be gavel powers. If Democrats were to regain the House for oversight, for many committees, they would have the authority to bring in administration officials and other under subpoena threat, basically try to hold them account and get some testimony from the Trump administration on a number of fronts. There has already been conversations, I think when you talk to some far left folks and progressives, there is some murmurings about impeachment.

I think that for the most part, Democrats are not wanting to talk about that on the campaign trail, mostly keeping their focus on affordability and the economy. You don't see a lot of voters saying that, "Oh yeah, we want Democrats to take back the House so they can impeach Donald Trump."

Now if there are some investigations that merit that, I think Democrats would certainly pursue that as they did during the first term. But though they don't want to do is overshoot this here and caught into what happened in the 2024 election, which was this accusation that Trump and his allies [inaudible 00:08:45] Democrats was that you were using, quote, "lawfare," against trying to use the legal justice process to hold him or to punish him for the election or ahead of the election in 2024.

So I don't know if impeachment is going to be talked about that much in these midterms, but you're certainly going to see gavel authority. I think you're certainly going to see some more progressive legislation come out of the House, even if it gets nowhere in the Senate, which may in fact itself go Democratic. They're already forecasters data saying that as the president's summers get worse, as Democrats do better in these elections, now the Senate is in play.

About a year ago, six months ago, this wasn't even a conversation that Democrats could take back the Senate. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader for the Democrats and the Senate feels very confident now. We had a chance to speak with him earlier this year here at USA TODAY. And he told me that, look, he's very confident in his recruitment class. He got the candidates that he thinks are the best to win some of these races.

I'm talking about states like Ohio and Maine and Alaska where Republicans are on their heels a bit. So we could see both chambers of Congress changing over to Democrats and their control. This would change everything, and it would pretty much, as Governor Gavin Newsom of California stated, it would pretty much put an effective end to any sort of legislative goals the Trump administration would have. And it certainly would present him with some other challenges, including oversight that he's not really getting right now.

Dana Taylor:

Philip, there's one other very critical factor that could blow this whole redistricting battle up. And that's a looming decision at the Supreme Court regarding a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. What is it and how might this play out?

Phillip M. Bailey:

Well, really for the past 20 years, the Supreme Court has chipped away at the historic 1965 Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts certainly has been a critic of that. And it was last October data that the High Court for about a two and a half hour debate or during that case has been brought by Louisiana about their congressional districts.

The question really comes down to, can these historic protections have they basically run their course? The more conservative leaning justices, and I'm thinking of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, his issue really is these racial remedies that were started at a moment where they were needed. And looking back at the civil rights movement, I think a lot of more conservative justices on the court are arguing that, look, these things have run their course. More progressive-minded and more liberal leaning justices, I think would disagree with that.

The core of this case does come down to where these civil rights protections that were created for racial minorities, for Black Americans in particular, can you have these race-based remedies without discriminating against other voters? There's a lot of skepticism when you talk to civil rights attorneys and other leaders about whether the court will uphold this historic legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

There is this estimation that the entire act itself could be thrown out, not just some provisions. If so, if the Supreme Court makes this decision that I think a lot of Democrats and progressives are worried about, you will see a free for all. You'll see this gerrymandering war supercharge in a way that I think the voters really aren't appreciative of right now.

I think there's been some estimates that 27 additional Republican seats could be created, particularly in the South. And the issue would come back to, does that disenfranchise African-American voters? So this is an issue and this is a case that everyone's paying attention to, the president, members of Congress, governors across the country. It could be a historic one. And given the conservative tilt of this current court, there's a lot of skepticism. And given its overall record when it comes to race-based or diversity initiatives, there are a lot of progressives and Democrats who are guarding really for the end of the Voting Rights Act.

Dana Taylor:

As I mentioned, some journalists are calling this essentially a redistricting arms race between Republicans and Democrats, but nowhere in the prominent analysis that's been widely published are people talking about the impact on voters. What's the biggest risk to them as a result of all these new maps being drawn?

Phillip M. Bailey:

Well, since Democrats have taken the position of fight fire with fire, there really isn't anyone right in the public sphere, at least advocating for what I think is basically good government policy, bipartisan agreement, the gerrymandering, which both parties have historically engaged in over the decades.

That group of people have really died down in the conversation. I'm talking about your folks from the Brennan Center for Justice. I'm talking about the bipartisan policy center, civic-minded leaders who believe in small D democracy. And they've been warning against this for some time since President Trump started this gerrymandering arms race. They were warning against this escalation because it's essentially undemocratic.

When you have basically politicians in the powerful picking the voters rather than the other way around. When the politicians get to say, "This is where my district is and I get to pick the voters who I know are more aligned with my political philosophy." It pretty much has guaranteed outcomes.

The result is more gridlock, lack of cooperation, lack of bipartisanship. And remember, our system is based upon compromise. So when you don't have competitive districts, when you don't have competitive seats, the fewer and fewer that they are, it means when we have elected officials in office and they're stubborn and they don't want to compromise and don't want to make a deal. It's because they know there's no one back home to punish them because they know that X amount of percentage of their voters in their districts support them anyway just because they have R or a D behind their name.

Now there are Democrats in Congress who point out that, look, there was legislation in Congress to end this process to allow nonpartisan actors to draw these maps. Some states like Virginia, which were rated by Princeton University as having some of the best and fairest maps in the country until they entered the gerrymandering war that they will argue that it's because of President Trump.

And no matter who started or who finished it, at the end of the day, the people who are going to get punished the most are going to be average Americans, average citizens. In some extreme cases, Dana, when we've looked at gerrymandering in the past, there have been times where the party could lose most of the vote overall, but win most of the seats.

I know that's hard for people to maybe figure out sometimes in the map that that's how funky some of these maps and districts are drawn. You look at them, some of them are drawn like octopus. So at the end of the day, I think that we'll see if this arms race has ever dialed down, whether now or later. I know in Virginia, for example, their special election, the provision in there was that this will sunset in 2030. It'll be only temporary, but who knows?

When you have these two parties going back and forth, you're already seeing members of Congress on the Republican side after the Virginia votes saying, "We have to escalate this." Even though President Trump again started it. "We have to escalate this. We can't let the Democrats get away with this." Eventually someone's going to have to come along and say, "Let's everyone cool our heels here and dial this down."

In the meantime, the people who lose the most, people like you and me and average Americans who aren't going to live in probably competitive districts, we're going to have folks who are digging their heels in even more. That means Congress, which already has, I believe, a 10% approval rating according to some polls. I think the only thing worse than that might be a sewer rat. You're going to have a situation here where average Americans aren't going to see Congress or their legislatures get a whole lot done.

Dana Taylor:

Philip M. Bailey is USA TODAY's chief political correspondent. Always fascinating to hear your insights. Thank you, Philip.

Phillip M. Bailey:

Dana, as always, thank you.

Dana Taylor:

Thanks to our senior producer, Kaely Monahan, for her production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts @usatoday.com. Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. I'll be back Monday morning with another episode of USA TODAY's The Excerpt.