Politics For Happy People
A podcast about politics for happy people!
Politics For Happy People
Who Draws the Maps—and Why It Matters
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Why are states suddenly redrawing congressional maps? What even is gerrymandering? And why does redistricting matter so much heading into the next election cycle?
In this episode of Politics for Happy People, Joseph Backholm and Ashley Vaughan break down the growing redistricting battles happening across America. From Texas and California to North Carolina and New York, they explain how political maps are drawn, why both parties fight so hard over them, and how recent Supreme Court decisions could reshape Congress for years to come.
They also unpack the history behind gerrymandering, the role of race in district drawing, the constitutional debates surrounding “majority-minority” districts, and why these fights over political boundaries ultimately affect everyday issues like education, parental rights, taxes, and abortion policy.
Whether you’ve never understood redistricting before or you’ve only heard the term “gerrymandering” in passing, this episode connects the dots between political maps and real-life consequences.
Welcome to Politics for Happy People, where we have fun conversations about serious issues. So you're with us, I'm Joseph back home, and I am joined once again by Ashley on Ashley Scoot today. Good to see you, Joseph.
SPEAKER_01What are we talking about?
SPEAKER_00Well, what are we talking about? On a scale of one to ten, how well do you feel like you understand redistricting, Ashley?
SPEAKER_01You want an actual number between one to ten? Yes. Um, I'm probably at a seven. Oh, that's pretty good. Well, I did some reading.
SPEAKER_00You did some reading. Just a little bit.
SPEAKER_01A little prep.
SPEAKER_00Like what how would you describe the redistricting wars that are happening in America right now?
SPEAKER_01Um, gosh, how would I describe them? Uh I tit for tat.
SPEAKER_00Okay.
SPEAKER_01That's how I describe them.
SPEAKER_00Say more.
SPEAKER_01Um, I mean, I think it's just uh people are going back and forth, you know. You draw this map, well, look at me. I'm gonna draw this map.
SPEAKER_00So that's that's my I I think that's fair. But you're the expert, Joseph. I'm not. No, I'm not I'm not an expert in redistricting. That's and one of the reasons we're gonna talk about this today is um you might even give yourself a higher number than I did, and I kind of did more work for this, I think. So I mean it's like maybe it's great inflation. I don't know. Maybe you have a really elevated sense of your knowledge, right? Right. Or maybe you really do understand this well. But we're gonna work through this today. Um, and and I think the reason it's important is because it actually is really relevant to our political conversations right now. And I think people and and I think on balance, people know almost nothing about this. And and that's what, you know, I don't know if we're gonna call this redistricting for dummies. But educate me. Not start as dumb. No. I I think this is just one of those issues that is underrated in terms of impact, and um, and most people probably feel like they know nothing about it. So I just kind of want to talk through this and have a redistricting story time, which sounds dreadfully boring, but I think it actually will not be because there's some real um there's real intrigue in all of this and um a lot of lawsuits and a lot of like civil wars. Yeah, yeah, we're not gonna dig into all of the uh all of the litigation. We'll refer to some of the most important cases. Okay. But re when we and what do we even mean when we say redistricting, right? Let's let's define the terms. Uh redistricting of the of the political maps that are used to elect our members of Congress and also our state legislatures. And most people will be aware that there is a federal government and there is a state government, and both the federal and state government elect people to office. And those people who are elected represent a very specific district. And we kind of intuitively know that our elected officials represent some people and not everyone, but most of us aren't aware of how those boundaries are drawn. And that is the dispute at the heart of these redistricting battles. And and let's talk about that for a moment because and and we're going to mostly focus on the on the federal conversation, because that's where the that's where the debate is happening for the most part in our country. Of course, North Carolina has been through this in the last decade for sure, several times with the way that the the state legislative maps have been drawn, and that's been the subject of some significant litigation. The Supreme Court has dealt with this issue uh multiple times now. But we're gonna this has really become an issue um in the last several, I don't know, is it several months or I don't think it's a couple years, but President Trump wanted Texas.
SPEAKER_01In the last year, yeah. Right?
SPEAKER_00He wanted Texas to redraw their maps, and then they did in a way that was gonna elect more Republicans, probably.
SPEAKER_01And let's just stop right there. Why does Trump want why did Trump want Texas to redraw their maps? Because why does that matter to him? He's not in Texas.
SPEAKER_00Well, he wants Republicans in Washington, D.C., right? Because that's the party that he he wants uh controlling Washington, D.C. And um we know Donald Trump likes winning, and uh we also suspect that Donald Trump is willing to generally do what it takes to win. And one of those things is uh draw maps that contain districts that are more likely to elect Republicans. And so that's I mean, that's generally understood.
SPEAKER_01Because it impacts him personally and what he's trying to do. Totally, totally.
SPEAKER_00And I also think legacy stuff, and part of this is you know, as we as we come up on November of 2026, midterms are typically difficult for the party in power. And historically, when a Republican is elected president, the Republicans lose in the midterms, and when a Democrat is elected president, the Democrats lose in the midterms. So that pattern suggests that this November is going to be difficult for Republicans, and and there have been political signals, and you know, gas prices are high, the war in Iran isn't going awesome, inflation is not totally under control. There are good, there are signs of strength in the economy, but there's it's not all good. And right, you know, as we're recording this, I think the number I heard today is that Trump's approval rating is at like 30, 39, 40 percent. Of course, that wasn't the number a year ago when this redistricting battle in Texas really started. But those are the things that somebody like President Trump is thinking about is I want to have as good an election as possible, and the election is more likely to be good for me if the maps are drawn in such a way that are favorable to me.
SPEAKER_01So and I have and so the maps get redrawn, but I think what was unique about this is that it isn't the typical time when they are redrawn.
SPEAKER_00Generally, they have been drawn every 10 years as a census is taken, because uh the the federal census happens every 10 years, then you recount all the number of people in your state, and then that determines how many congressional districts there will be in your state, because there's one congressional district for every electoral vote, and all of that is determined by population. And so, yeah, well, let's recount the people. Okay, now you have, you know, some states will gain electoral votes and congressional districts, some states will lose electoral votes and congressional districts, and typically that is when the state draws the maps. Because the state, and and and here's let's go back to the beginning and make sure that everybody's kind of with us. The Constitution does not really prescribe how this process is going to carry out. We know that at the federal level, and most states, except for Nebraska, which is unicameral, but Congress is a bicameral institution. There's a House and a Senate. And everybody probably knows that the Senate has two represent two senators per state, regardless of the population. So Wyoming has two senators, California has two senators. They don't even have close to the same number of people. There's actually only one member of Congress from Wyoming because that's how few people they have. But there are two senators there because the Senate has two people from every state, but the House of Representatives is uh is determined by population. So, of course, states with more people have many more members of Congress. But eve every state, the the every state gets to determine for itself how they draw these boundaries. And that is the that is the process that is being uh debated right now is what is the right way to do this. And typically, there have been, you know, it's historically you the the the districts have to generally be the same size, and there was a Supreme Court case around that. You can't have one district with 40 of your friends where you guys get to determine and elect one member of Congress, and then everybody else is represented by by other people. So they have to be generally the same size. Historically, they think about things like you know shared interests. Are you all living in the same city or are you all like farmers? Right? They think about those things and they try to have it be somewhat you know consistent. Um, but in the early 19th century, there was a uh uh the governor of Massachusetts was a guy named Eldridge Jerry. And you you heard the term gerrymander? Oh yeah. Actually, okay. So do you know the etymology of gerrymander? I don't know the etymology. I'd love to know it. Most people know have heard the term gerrymander, but where does this come from? Eldridge Jerry, he uh created a Senate district to benefit his party, and it came to look and it was unusual because they decided it looked like a salamander. And so they took this salamander-shaped district and named it after Eldridge Jerry. There you have the gerrymander. That's what this creature was, and that was kind of the original example of someone being, you know, kind of breaking outside the historical norms of, oh, these are roughly the same size, have the same people, same area, kind of squares and boxes, right? That's kind of you you look at the you look at a state map of like counties, and that's how you would imagine that legislative districts would be drawn. Okay, let's take these people and then those people, but now he was breaking this down in purely political terms. What's going to help me? I'm gonna create this district. That's where the gerrymander was created. We are throwing off those historical rules. And so that was still kind of the exception rather than the rule. And then one of the other issues in in the 20th century that really kind of started to inform this was the civil rights movement. And and we know that once you could like design districts for personal partisan political reasons, people started doing, or at least would be tempted to do so for racist reasons, and we know the history of that in our country. And and and that in fact did happen, where races, where districts would be drawn as a way to disempower certain voters and help other voters. And the Voting Rights Act was one of the parts of the what one of the things the Voting Rights Act did was to make sure that you could not deny the right to vote on account of race or color. And that's of course, individuals could not be denied the right to vote. But there were also Supreme Court cases that essentially said this also means you cannot draw districts in such a way that disenfranchise particular voters. And the black community, the you know, that was of course them the most like likely example, but that would apply to any racial district. So, are you with me so far? Yes. Okay, I know I'm going through a lot of history here and and stories, but I I think it all gets to something that's that's kind of important. And so we we don't want to draw maps in a racist way to make sure that, you know, for example, black people have no representation in Congress and their votes don't matter, and dilute all those votes. And so what happened? The Voting Rights Act started to be interpreted in such a way that states were were consciously making majority-minority districts, does that make sense to you? Majority-minority where a majority of the people within that district would be racial minorities. That's what they refer to as a majority-minority district. And so they were very likely to elect somebody of that ethnic minority. Now, this year, April, so we're talking now two months ago, Louisiana versus Calais is a case where the Supreme Court now has said it is in fact illegal to have racial considerations in the drawing of your maps. Why is that? Because the equal protection clause of the fourth 14th Amendment forbids the government from using race to can to account for those things. So you have something of this whiplash where there were people who were interpreting the civil rights amendment to say you must consider race in the drawing of districts to make sure that you're not disfavoring minorities. And now the Supreme Court says actually you can't consider race at all, because it's racist to consider race, which is actually a position I'm sympathetic to. And and last year, case out of North Carolina, in the uh in the um affirmative action in admissions in college context. Yes, right?
SPEAKER_01Yes, that's what it's reminding me of.
SPEAKER_00Yes, and and and there there's the part of this that is kind of consistent. It's it's it's helpful to consider the issue in a slightly different context because uh with really good motives, we want to we want to end you know racial disadvantages, uh institutions of higher learning, and this was in in this case, it was the University of North Carolina and Harvard, would give preference to applicants based on their racial uh makeup, their their ethnicity, whatever box they would check on their application. And what the Supreme Court says is actually that's racist. Because if you give an advantage to a kid of a particular ethnicity, you necessarily disadvantage a kid of a different ethnicity.
SPEAKER_01Which sort of brings up a question that has arisen in my mind as you've been talking. Um America is increasingly ethnically diverse. And so even if you were to think, okay, we need to draw these lines to favor this group, then what about another minority group that you may not have included, you know, in your scheme? I mean, how many ways can you slice a pie?
SPEAKER_00Well, that is in fact exactly what has happened in the um affirmative action cases. Those cases are not brought by white kids. They're all brought by Asian kids. All of those lawsuits, because, for better or worse, and maybe we'll do a show on this one day, Asian kids are much more likely to be successful academically. They are highly overrepresented in educational institutions, especially the elite ones. And we kind of all chuckle and understand the stereotypes. They're very good at taking tests, they're very good at studying. Why is that? We'll talk about that another day, but that's the reality. Their statistics, their applications, their GPAs, their SAT, their ATC scores on average are disproportionately good. So if it is so so it is the Asian applicants who are when when when Harvard or UNC says, we're gonna give, you know, we're gonna give points to these applicants because they are Native American, or they are Hispanic, or they are African American, because those are underrepresented groups within our community, we're gonna give them points. It is always Asian students who have stronger applications when you just look at the you know test scores and grades and all of those things that are disadvantaged. So it is the Asian American students, though they are certainly a racial minority, who brought these lawsuits saying you are actually discriminating against us based on our race. You are knocking us down simply because we are of Chinese heritage, Japanese heritage. That's the argument. And the Supreme Court agreed with them and said, if we are going to not be racist, we have to not be racist. Now the challenge is the people at UNC and Harvard who set up those rules actually believe that they are not being racist. Because their heart is we want to end the underrepresentation of disadvantaged groups, and that means we have to we have to, you know, disadvantage those who are overrepresented. Is it racist to do racist yeah, how I even how I frame this question, but do you agree with the Supreme Court that it is that it should be unconstitutional to give preference to people based on their race in the hopes that you are actually helping them come out of certain systemic disadvantages, as it would see it?
SPEAKER_01I do agree with the Supreme Court. I think that I would like to see representation of all groups, you know, um, no matter what your ethnicity is or gender or whatnot. I think it's wrong, this is my opinion, I think it's wrong to artificially try to create that. I want to see that, but I don't think that we should try to artificially create it.
SPEAKER_00And and that's what they've done, right? And and it is it is an attempt, and and how I have thought about this in the past is in recognition of the fact that evil racism exists, we have tried to account for that through good racism, well-intended racism. Because it is it it is well-intended, and the question is, is it still racist, even though it's well intended? Because the purpose of affirmative action programs and majority-minority political districts is we want to help people who have been historically disadvantaged. And and the reality of the historical disadvantage is is is not denied. Right. But the solution that they've come up with is as a result of this, we are going to disadvantage certain voters, certain applicants, because we want to provide advantages to people who had been um who have been historically disadvantaged.
SPEAKER_01So we've been talking for the last couple minutes about uh gerrymandering based on race, but where we started was I guess I don't I don't know if it also counts as gerrymandering, but drawing districts based on political party preferences, such like Trump asking Texas to redraw their maps and so forth. So these two things are happening, right? And so can you tell us more about kind of what has happened uh since that initial Trump asking Texas to redraw their maps? There's there have been uh is a domino effect around the country.
SPEAKER_00So the Supreme Court they threw down racial affirmative action, and now they have thrown down um race-based district drawing. But the reality is there are somewhere between 30 and 40 districts that currently exist in the U.S. that everybody knows were drawn specifically for racial reasons. That the primary consideration in those particular maps was to have an overrepresentation of a racial minority. Now, the reality is that that also tracks politically. Most of those, if not all of those districts, are currently represented by Democrats. And that's why this starts to become really important. Because right now, there's 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, 218 of them right now are Republicans, 214 are Democrats, and there are three vacancies. So there's a four-seat majority, and that's very narrow for the Republicans at this moment. 30 to 40 percent of those seats, and I think all of them are currently represented by Democrats, if the states where those are coming from now go back and say, now some of them are probably gonna be in California, and I I don't want to I don't want to say things that I don't know, but certainly the majority of those are Republicans. Some of those are gonna be in blue states, but many of those are gonna be in red states, where there were, in fact, like in Louisiana, they were ordered by a court to go back and create another majority-minority district, which would represent a Democrat. So the Supreme Court has now said those decisions by that court is unconstitutional, and any action by a state with that as their primary goal to create a majority-minority district, that's illegal. So now those states, some of those, because they want to, because they're red districts and they want more Republicans, they're going to very quickly race back and redraw those maps. In some cases, you might have blue states where those exist and people will file lawsuits and say, we want you to redraw those districts, even if the political leadership of that state does not want to. So you have 30 to 40 seats where race was, if not a motivating, if not the motivating factor, a motivating factor that they will have to go back and redraw. And that has really significant implications, especially coming up on a midterm.
SPEAKER_01And what's the time frame with which we would expect these to be re redrawn before the midterm?
SPEAKER_00Well, some of them are doing it now.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00I mean, w we saw, I mean, again in Louisiana, they postponed their May 16th primary to go back and redraw maps. So it's happening in real time.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Right now, as you know, we you know, control of Congress matters, but this is so fluid. Because, you know, Texas did what their thing, their thing when President Trump asked them to uh California responds, all of this, and and let's see the summary of this is there's kind of this expectation that if everybody who is currently doing redistricting efforts, and so some of the blue states are going bluer, some of the red states are going redder, that this would result in somewhere between um 16 to 18 additional GOP districts.
SPEAKER_01Is that what they're estimating right now?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, you gotta actually have the elections, but yes, if everybody goes all in on this, now that you now that there's no question, you not only do you not have to account to consider race, the Supreme Court is saying you may not consider race, but what you can consider is politics. And that's what all the states are doing. Right, right? Right, right. Now, there's another element of this, is like, whose fault is this? Because Trump told Texas to do this, and then California is responding to Texas, right? That is the most recent narrative. But there's some more data here that we need to be aware of is who are the real gerrymanderers? Is it the Republicans or is it the Democrats? Everybody's fighting over who to who to remain here.
SPEAKER_01Right. The tit for tat piece.
SPEAKER_00I'm gonna ask you a handful of questions here. Oh gosh, Ashley. I'm gonna I'm gonna test your your um knowledge of scary makeup of this is scary. Because the argument is, right, in Texas, okay, uh 45% of Texans voted for um Kamala Harris. So shouldn't 45% of their congressional districts be represented by death Democrats, right? That's the argument.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00And so it's like everybody should be represented. You know, if 45% of the states of the people in in Texas vote for Democrats, shouldn't it be wrong if 90% of their elector their members of Congress are Republicans?
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00So um, and and and I understand that argument, but we're gonna have a little quiz here.
SPEAKER_01Oh no.
SPEAKER_00State of Connecticut. They have five congressional districts.
SPEAKER_01Okay.
SPEAKER_00How many of them do you think are re represented by the I don't I don't want to do this quiz?
SPEAKER_01No, no, no. It's I'm not doing it.
SPEAKER_00I promise you're gonna learn it. And it and the question is you're not from Connecticut. How many just yes, out of those five, how many are Republicans one. Zero. I was gonna go with zero. I was gonna go with zero. Massachusetts, bigger state, same neighborhood. Oh, and in Connecticut. Forty percent of Connecticut voted for Trump.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Forty percent. How many of Republicans are in Congress? The answer is zero. Massachusetts, they have nine congressional seats in Congress. How many Republicans do you think? And we know Massachusetts is a blue state.
SPEAKER_01I'm gonna go with one again.
SPEAKER_00Close, but no. Also zero. Yeah. Massachusetts has no Republicans. 37% of the state voted for Donald Trump. Um, Maryland, right next to the nation's capital, has eight members of Congress, eight electoral votes. How many of Maryland's representation is Republican, do you think, of those eight? Two. Wrong again, Ashley. Also zero. Golly. Also zero.
SPEAKER_01They have zero.
SPEAKER_00That's also zero. New Jersey, twelve.
SPEAKER_01Zero.
SPEAKER_00I'm catching on. I'm catching on. Thirty-seven percent voted for Trump, zero Republican members of Congress. Right?
SPEAKER_01So if if we're gonna be Okay, so okay, this leads me to my question. Are the red states doing any better?
SPEAKER_00Well, that that is the question, right? Because now there's this now there's this outrage that Texas is, I mean, what what's the change that they were trying to make? I don't even know if I have that data with me uh real quickly here. Texas, um their new map pre previously it was 25 to 13. The new map is expected to net an additional three to five. So that would make Texas somewhere between like 28 to 10 is what they would expect the can the partisan breakdown to be in Texas. Right now it's 25 to 13. Okay so somewhere between 28 to 10 or then maybe 30 to 8.
SPEAKER_01Okay, and what percentage of the population voted for Trump?
SPEAKER_00Uh oh, in Texas, I don't know. We probably 55, 56 percent. I'm just trying to compare it to And that's the exercise we should be doing here, right? Because we're trying to figure out whose fault is it? Is it an I mean because the Texas has gotten a lot of attention for unambiguously, and let's let's be very honest about what they're doing, for partisan reasons, they're trying to draw maps that help the Republicans. And there's a lot of Democrats who are outraged by this. But all of the data that we just went through with Maryland, with Connecticut, I mean, and let's talk about a couple more that we haven't got to. New Jersey, they have 12 seats. How many do you think are represented by Republicans?
SPEAKER_01Zero.
SPEAKER_00And it's actually two.
SPEAKER_01Golly.
SPEAKER_00Okay, so but 46% of the state voted for Trump, two members of Congress. So they, you know, that's seven, eight, seven percent of their con 8% of their congressional delegation is Republicans. New York, they have 26 members of Congress from New York. How many of those do you think are Republicans? Four. Six. Okay. You were close, right? But 43%. If we're gonna go a portion proportionate, 43% of 26 is like 11 or 12. If if that's the game that we're gonna play. New York hasn't been doing that for a very, very, very long time.
SPEAKER_01How's North Carolina doing?
SPEAKER_00So North Carolina, it's currently 10 to 4. 10 Republicans, four Democrats. The the map has been redrawn in a way that the Republicans hope is going to, you know, pick that up.
SPEAKER_01Is that in which district? The first district, right?
SPEAKER_00The one that's going to be redrawn. I'd have to go look, but maybe it may be.
SPEAKER_01No, it is the first district. It's eastern North Carolina. It's the seat that John Davis currently holds. Right. That's the one that was this year slightly we redrawn and should lean more Republican now.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. So from 10 to 4 to 11 to 3, if that change holds in North Carolina. Is it purely partisan? Absolutely it is. Is so there's two questions here about is that the way we should draw congressional maps? Should partisans just do what partisans can do to maximize their own particular advantages politically? Some of us might say yes, some of us might say no, we should be above that, we should just be more fair. But what I hope is becoming clear with this data is we can be mad at Texas because we wish people were like more even-handed. But it is it is hypocritical for the left to say, how dare you, Texas, because New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, New they've all been doing this for a very long time. They started this game a long time ago. They just have been recently outraged because Texas decided we can do that too. Now, the one holdout so far has been Indiana. And Indiana, when Trump said we need you to redraw those maps, they're all like, no, we don't want to do that because Midwesterners are just so kind, right? I mean, whatever that is, I'm not sure that Indiana will be able to maintain that kind of self-control in an environment where everybody else has just gone all in, assuming that's what happens. So I'm not like, I do I like gerrymandering? I mean, no, on some level, but I also kind of get it. And and what I think is that the the uh toothpaste is out of the tube, so to speak. And I just think this is our new reality.
SPEAKER_01I think it's an inherently political process, the drawing of maps, as much as we would like to say, oh, this should, you know, this shouldn't be biased, this should be nonpartisan. And it's like, well, sure, theoretically, but uh the reality is this it is a political process. So yeah, that's where you get the tit for tat from.
SPEAKER_00And I and I don't see anybody, I I just don't see any signs that anybody's gonna be exercising like restraint on this anymore. And, you know, as a guy who cares about ideas, I'm not even sure I want my side to exercise, or you know, my side such as it is, um, to exercise restraint when everybody else is all in for power. Because I do not want the left in America to have control. I don't. Now, I mean, it's not, you don't win at all costs, right? That's not American, and that's not Christian, and you don't break rules and lie and deceive. No, none of these folks, I mean, Connecticut and Maryland, they weren't breaking any laws when they had purely Democrat congressional districts drawn. So it wasn't illegal, it was just kind of like that's what they wanted to do. So um it just it is violating, it feels like historical political norms, but I mean, it just feels like this is the world that we live in now.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. It also just points to the importance of elections and and voting, um, voting people into office that share your values that are going to fight for those values. And that's one of the reasons why our organization has gotten involved in elections and helping voters be informed and doing candidate endorsements because we want people to have the information that they need to have in order to vote people into office that are going to advance their values and uh conserve what's truly important. And um because because yes, at the end of the day, reality hits and all of these things, these uh redrawing these districts, it it it is an inherently political office and I'm sorry, it inherently a political process. And and we do need to elect people into office that that have our shared values.
SPEAKER_00One of the interesting things that could develop out emerge out of all of this as kind of congressional lines are redrawn in most cases by state legislatures. There are some states that have quote unquote nonpartisan commissions that where they're not elected officials who draw these maps and and they evaluate them and they all vote and they decide, okay, these are five. Yeah, I was gonna ask you, is it always the state legislatures? Not always. In most cases. And in those cases, what's what's interesting is that if everybody goes all in on partisan maps for for Congress, and those maps are drawn by the state legislators, the real power starts to be returned to the state legislature. Because the result is what's the the people going to DC are essentially proxies of the state legislature. And so the only way you're gonna change your congressional representation is if you change your state legislators, because they're the ones who draw the maps. And this is not, I don't think anybody was like developing this as a strategy, but I think the actual outcome of this is the real power returns to the state legislators who are actually more accessible to the public. And in some ways, maybe that's good because the the priority then returns to the state because they're the ones who really determine who's in Congress. So that could be an unintended, but maybe good outcome of all of this.
SPEAKER_01That's pretty interesting.
SPEAKER_00But but I do think the reality is as these lines get drawn this way, blue is gonna get bluer, red is gonna get redder, and Americans are just gonna continuously continue to, and maybe increasingly vote with their feet, and just decide what kind of world do I want to live in.
SPEAKER_01Well, I was gonna ask you that because you know we have seen this recent trend of people moving from blue states to red states, and a lot of that has to do with taxation and all of that. So, how does that play into all of this?
SPEAKER_00Well, I I think the the at as the as as the blue states draw the lines so that those states are m more likely to stay blue, and red states draw the lines so they're gonna more likely to stay red, the hope of like changing the political direction of your state gets smaller. Right. And so people are just gonna have to, it's kind of an East Berlin-West Berlin thing. What world do I want to live in? And I'm gonna vote with my feet, and then if all of the, you know, the red voters in California, they moved to Nebraska and they moved to North Carolina and they moved to Texas, those it it just kind of it even further hardens those lines because that's what people want. And you're and and I'm not, you know, the swing states, how many are gonna remain in in another 10 years? And what side of the line are those states gonna be on? Because while, you know, we in North Carolina have these weird situations where we have Republican supermajorities and Democrat governors, the the prospect of Democrats actually taking control of the state legislature as the maps continually be drawn by the current Republican leadership, it gets harder and harder. It it gets harder and harder. So, you know, we we think about the the swing state wall of Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania and you know and North Carolina and Florida and well not Florida anymore, but Georgia, right? These states that we consider to be swing states, I'm not sure how much longer, I mean, in the presidential election, they're gonna maybe still be swing states. Right. Because that's a that that's a unique election. But in terms of what's going on at the state level, I mean, we may be entering a world in which everything is as it is, and there's not any like it's not foreseeable that it's gonna change anytime soon.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00So, I mean, you know, you want to be on the right side of that divide as a state. Because again, when we look through the list of issues, I mean we talk about tax policy, but abortion policy, parental rights, school choice, are we gonna cut off the genitals of our children to treat their, you know, their mental health? All of those issues like life in in California and Texas are gonna be so radically different. It's gonna be hard to recognize them as the same states because in some places homeschooling is gonna be illegal and you're gonna have to go to a government school. And in other states, it's gonna be you know, universal school choice. The money follows you wherever you want to go. Parents have complete control over the curriculum and the healthcare decisions of their children. And in other places, parents aren't even allowed to know, and it's illegal to homeschool. And of course, you go to the you know, the the Dry Queen School down the street because that's where the government wants you. And so life and you know, taxpayer-funded abortions, taxpayer-funded sex change operations, um, you know, school-provided pornography to your fifth grader, um, you know, all of that stuff that we like that that we we we really care about, it's gonna be a concentrated version of progressivism in blue states and not in other places. And those are gonna create very different worlds.
SPEAKER_01They really are two very different visions for what life should look like, what the family should look like, what's valuable. Um two completely different lifestyles. Yeah. So even hearing you talk about the maps and the redistricting, and the red states are gonna be redder and the blue states are gonna be bluer, those definitely do sound like radically different places given where both parties are sort of ideologically. Right.
SPEAKER_00And in and to connect the dots and our this conversation, it's you know, those political maps drawn by your like state legislators determine whether your kid gets pornography in fourth grade. You know, that that's really the implication of this stuff. It's it's kind of raw, maybe even boring political conversations, but understand the implications that that has because the way those maps are drawn now determines who's going to be elected in those places and who's elected in those places. Has a lot to do with what's going on.
SPEAKER_01You may not care about the maps, but you do care about the impacts of those maps.
SPEAKER_00And those maps care about you, whether you know it or not. And that's the reality.
SPEAKER_01Change your life as you know it.
SPEAKER_00But ultimately the power is invested in us, and it's our job to be good stewards of that and to pay attention and to care and do everything that we can. Um, we don't despair because ultimately uh God is in charge of all of this stuff. But uh we're concerned and we do what we can and we uh we live and act with joy.
SPEAKER_01Paying attention, we're engaged.
SPEAKER_00We we live and act with joy because we are to be uh as ambassadors for Christ, agents for good, and uh opponents of evil. And that's what we're here for. So thank you for joining us once again on Politics for Happy People. So glad that you're with us for this conversation. If you've enjoyed it, if you've learned something, share it with a friend because they might as well. Your reviews help us reach more people. So grateful for giving us a review whenever, wherever you have found the show today. Look forward to seeing you next time. New episodes every Tuesday and Friday. We'll see you then on Politics for Happy People.