Ask Us Anything
Redistricting, cabinet officials behaving badly, and Trump damage that can be easily repaired
Please become a paid subscriber to Wolves and Sheep and Bowers News Media for $8 per month or $80 every 365 days. You receive access to two paid articles per week, invites to our monthly briefings, opportunities to ask us questions in our Ask Us Anything series, and gain the ability to post comments on our articles.
Please update us on the current state of the redistricting fight.
(Chris) Happy to do so!
At the end of 2025, I saw the redistricting battle as an even wash between Democrats and Republicans. That is slightly more optimistic for Democrats than other observers, but I believe my reasoning was strong. You can read it in my December 13, 2025 article, “What Indiana’s Courageous Stand Against Trump Means for the Gerrymandering Wars.”
At least in the 2026 elections, Democrats will net four seats from the new map in Virginia, while Republicans will net 2.5 seats from the new map in Florida. That Florida number comes from one redrawn Democratic seat that Republicans will definitely win this year, plus three redrawn Democratic seats that Republicans have a roughly 50-50 chance of winning this year. Combined, these two states give Democrats an estimated gain of 1.5 seats.
Third, the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana vs Callais will net Republicans three to five seats in 2026. That will mean one or two seats in both Alabama and Louisiana (depending on how far courts let them go), plus one seat in Tennessee. So, that now means Republicans are ahead in 2025-2026 by between 1.5 and 3.5 seats. This will not be enough to allow them to keep control of the House, but it will somewhat reduce the size of the Democratic majority from 2027-2028.
After 2026, I expect that there will be a lot of redistricting and counter-redistricting in red and blue states. While there is a lot of uncertainty at this point, my initial take is this will all cancel out, thus leaving the Republican net gain of 1.5 to 3.5 seats in place.
I should note that in an election year with more favorable national trends for Republicans, that net total of 1.5 to 3.5 will go up for them. This is because some of the seats Republicans have redrawn are still winnable for Democrats in a good year like 2026, but will not be winnable for them in a subpar year, such as 2024.
Can you explain the differences between Republican and Democratic gerrymandering that make Republican gerrymanders illegal and Democratic gerrymanders heroic?
(Matt) I’m not sure I would use the term illegal, but I would frame it as a power grab and a defense against a power grab. What Republicans did in Texas, for instance, was unorthodox (mid-decade redistricting is unusual), and the procedures they used to make it happen were heavy handed, but it was not illegal. However, it was done in the service of a president who is desperate not to lose legislative power and who cannot compete on a level playing field, so he pushed Texas to change its map mid-decade to squeeze whatever advantage he could out of a state where Republicans control the redistricting process.
In turn, Democratic states like California and Virginia responded by counter-gerrymandering. This process was more complex, because both states had established neutral commissions designed to draw fair maps out of the well-placed belief that representation should roughly reflect the partisan distribution of the state. The legislatures of each state had to agree to suspend neutral redistricting for the immediate future, then put the issue in front of voters for approval. This is a more democratic process than what transpired in Texas because voters were involved, and it reflected the understanding that while neutral redistricting is a worthwhile goal, it is only fair if everyone is doing it. So the impulse behind it was small-d democratic, even if the outcome was not. And if you want to call that a heroic move in the fight to preserve democracy, it would be hard to argue with you.
As a married, and recently widowed, woman, do I need to worry about changing my name back to my given name—the one on my birth certificate? I live in Massachusetts.
(Chris) First, let me say that I am sorry for your loss.
No, you don’t need to change your name back to the one on your birth certificate if you do not want to do so. There has been some scaremongering and, unfortunately, misinformation from our own side about the impact that the SAVE Act would have on voters. A few points to set the record straight:
The SAVE Act has no chance of becoming federal law, so it will never apply to Massachusetts or any other state that doesn’t pass their own version of it.
In the non-existent hypothetical world where the SAVE Act does become law, it only applied to people newly registering to vote, not to already registered voters.
In that same non-existent hypothetical world, all anyone has to do to register to vote if the name on their identification is different from their name on their birth certificate is to sign an affidavit stating they are the same person. That’s really it.
Now, let me be clear. The SAVE Act is bad. If it somehow became federal law it would probably keep about 12% of people who attempt to register to vote from succeeding (that’s what happened in Kansas when a similar law was passed there). That is enough reason to oppose it.
However, there is no chance it will become federal law, ever, and it is too bad more people have not been upfront with you about this. Additionally, it is unfortunate that some of those people have strongly implied that the SAVE Act is imminently going to deny the vote to all married women who changed their name, because it isn’t and never was.
No exaggeration and scaremongering was needed to oppose the SAVE Act, but we sure got a lot of it anyway. I’m sorry that it ensnared you.
What do you think is behind the rumors of Trump thinking of cutting Patel and Hegseth loose? Noem clearly embarrassed him by outing that he had approved her spending misappropriation, Bondi clearly did not live up to her ridiculous mandate to indict non-indictable people. But what have Patel and Hegseth done that would make them such a liability to Trump?
(Matt) Donald Trump wants everyone around him to make him look good. He has created a reality TV cabinet composed of people with no expertise in their jobs that he expects to play well on TV and in social media. It’s about the tweeting, never the governing, and the premier rule is never upstage Donald Trump. So when Hegseth and Patel become fodder for SNL satire because of their drinking and erratic behavior, they have committed the prime (maybe only) offense that could warrant their dismissal.
Also, Trump is stuck with a war he needs to blame on someone. Hegseth is an obvious choice.
What’s the likelihood of impeachment for Kennedy or Hegseth?
(Matt) It’s about as low as the likelihood of Trump’s impeachment and conviction, which is to say I wouldn’t sit around waiting for it to happen. It would require a large number of Republicans to defy the administration, and there has been no appetite to do that on matters that are far less visible than impeachment and conviction of a cabinet official. Impeachment is a political remedy, and as such responds to the politics of the moment regardless of what the merits of impeachment may be. As bad as things are for Republicans, they would have to get much worse before they consider a mutiny at this level.
In your post entitled “Seven Good Reasons Why Most of Us Will Probably Be Okay in the Coming Years,” you noted that some of the damage the Trump Administration is doing will take a long time to repair while other programs will likely be righted in relatively short order. In another post you gave some examples of the former, like exacerbating climate change and making it even harder to access healthcare. But what are some of the problems that you think might be a relatively easy fix?
(Chris) Great question! Here are just some of the many things the Trump administration has done, or is doing, that can be remedied very quickly by a new administration:
The vindictive prosecution of Donald Trump’s political enemies can be immediately dropped by new leadership at the Department of Justice
Any of Trump’s executive orders can be immediately rescinded
Many of the tariffs that Trump still has in place can be quickly rescinded
All of Trump’s political appointees can be fired
The way immigration laws are enforced can be quickly changed
The way civil rights laws are enforced can be quickly changed
All FCC threats to the broadcast licenses of television stations can be dropped
All threats to withdraw troops from allied countries in Europe can be dropped
Trump imagery can be pulled down across federal agencies
Any changes to vaccine policies can be rescinded
The United States can quickly rejoin international organizations from which Trump withdrew
So really, quite a few things can be quickly put back into place! This is just a partial list, too. Trump has mainly governed by threats and executive actions, neither of which have to be continued by whoever occupies the Oval Office at 12:01 PM on January 20, 2029.