California vs. Texas: Nick Troiano on Redistricting Battles—and How to Fix Them

Why does so much political dysfunction begin before Election Day? In this episode of Faithful Politics, Will Wright speaks with Nick Troiano, Executive Director of Unite America and author of The Primary Solution. They unpack how gerrymandering and redistricting battles in states like Texas and California are only part of the problem. The real issue? Closed primaries that shut out millions of voters and reward partisan extremes.

Troiano explains how open primaries, ranked choice voting, and reforms already working in states like Alaska, Colorado, and New Mexico could restore competition, accountability, and majority rule to American elections. This conversation blends history, constitutional context, and on-the-ground reform efforts to show how we can strengthen democracy from the ground up.

If you’ve ever wondered why your vote feels like it doesn’t matter—or what can be done about it—this episode is your roadmap to meaningful reform.

Guest Bio
Nick Troiano is the Executive Director of Unite America, a nonpartisan organization advancing political reform to foster a more representative and functional government. A nationally recognized leader on electoral reform, Troiano has been at the forefront of efforts to end gerrymandering and promote open primaries across the country. His book, The Primary Solution (2024), makes the case for abolishing closed party primaries and empowering voters with real choice. He has been featured in national outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and C-SPAN, and is widely regarded as one of the leading voices on fixing the structural roots of polarization in American politics.

Relevant Links
Nick Troiano’s book: The Primary Solution https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-primary-solution-nick-troiano/
Unite America: www.uniteamerica.org

Transcript

0:16

Hey, welcome back, faithful politics listeners and watchers. I'm your political host, Will Wright, and I am not joined by your faithful host, Pastor Josh Bertram. He is out enjoying his anniversary. So happy anniversary, Josh. um But instead, we have returning with us a expert in the field of elections. His name is Nick Troiano. He's the executive director of Unite America, which is a nonpartisan organization leading the charge to fix our political system at its roots. Nick is actually one of the nation's top voices on primary reform and he's here to help us understand why so much of the dysfunction we see in politics today starts actually before the general election. uh So yeah, welcome back to the show, Nick. Really glad to have you. wish you luck with you, Will, and happy anniversary to you, Josh. Yeah, I'm sure he's off somewhere, probably uh with kids and on his 10th iteration of K-pop Demon Hunters, uh if I were guessing, which if you haven't seen the movie, it's pretty good. I was reluctant, we're not here to talk about K-pop, though. ah We're here to talk about elections and kind of what's happening across the country. So like if ah you're watching, listening and you haven't heard the news or any of the stuff about redistricting. I'd love for you, just kind of set the tone for us. Talk about what's happening. Why are we in this place where we're redistricting or gerrymandering? But before you do all that, just to kind of help establish some definitions, can you just talk about what is redistricting? What is gerrymandering? Well, to answer that question, let me take you back to the constitution at the root of this, because it's the constitution that requires every decade, a head count of how many people are living in the country. And one of the core purposes of that is to ensure that we do... reapportionment and redistricting, which is to say we have a national legislature in our Congress and in the House of Representatives, we want to have districts that have basically the same size population. And so in order to ensure that these populations are Equal across districts. have to count everyone every 10 years and make sure our districts take into account any of those population shifts. In the past, actually, we used to add new districts. The house got larger as the country got larger. And then it wasn't until I think the early 1900s where we put a cap on 435 districts. So that's the forcing function for this is constitutional requirement for this to happen every 10 years. Now, of course, how you draw those lines. in order to get to equal population of districts is a pretty discretionary process. And it wasn't so long after the founding that our cunning political parties and politicians realized they can draw the lines to their own advantage. And so redistricting uh became in when it is abused called gerrymandering uh because the districts, uh it was named after a governor Elbridge Gary at the time who uh named it that after seeing a district look like a salamander, right? It wasn't a compact district. It looked like one of these sort of inkblots. So gerrymandering has gone also back. You know, many, many years in our country, uh, for one political party has used this process to, know, to their own advantage. And we can get into that more. What's happening right now is strange because usually redistricting is a hot topic. After we do the census every 10 years, it's 2025. And, now sometimes there are what they're called mid cycle redistricting, maybe when a court orders it or there is some, uh, external circumstance. But this time, uh, why it's in the news is because the state of Texas is considering redrawing its lines in order to, at the request of President Trump, draw some more Republican districts uh in order to favor the Republican party ahead of next year's midterm elections. And in response to that, you have Democratic governors in other states saying, if Texas does that, we're going to have to try and level the playing field by... You know doing some mid-cycle redistricting or gerrymandering in this case ourselves and this isn't entirely new in terms of blue states and red states both gerrymandering but what is new is that this is happening midway through the decade and it has some significant consequences of where this sort of escalation can go So just to make sure I understand, does redistricting almost always occur after a census or are you aware of maybe like one-off redistricting happening at this date or whatever like that? of like uh just a business administrative kind of like thing, not necessarily anything political. Yeah, every state will redistrict after the census except those states that may only have one district because it is self-evident. They don't have any district lines to draw, but they'll do it maybe for state legislature. But the mid-cycle is rare and usually it's when there's some external circumstance that requires it like... the current maps getting struck down for violation of the Voting Rights Act and it has to go back to the legislature to draw or there's a lawsuit against the maps for some reason in a state and the state Supreme Court, you know, may get involved but that is an exception to the rule. So with everything that's happening in these states, California, Texas, um I read recently like Florida's in the mix, Ohio, Missouri, um and all the focus is really on just that it's on the redistricting, it's the politics, it's like, you know, they shouldn't do that, they should do that. But then like, you know, when you're looking at any sort of like... accident, for instance, like you're looking for the root cause, you're not looking for the surface level stuff. And, and I think that us sort of focusing on redistricting may not necessarily be the right thing to focus on. ah You have have recommended you have an entire like organization that's focused on, on what you feel is actually like the primary problem. So like, can you can you just walk us through like, like, what what do you think is really kind of the at the core, the major issue that we're dealing with here? to be clear, mean, gerrymandering is a problem. And the reason why that's a problem is when politicians and parties draw lines of districts to advantage themselves and squeeze out competition, you wind up getting more elections in November that are already pre-decided because the districts are so lopsided one way or another. So our organization opposes gerrymandering. We've worked in several states to support. Independent redistricting commissions that take the power out of the hands of politicians and put it into more neutral bodies like these independent citizens commissions that includes in Virginia and Colorado, for example. So there are solutions to this. The challenge with this issue is that over the last 30 years, you know, we've lost a few dozen competitive districts in the Congress that used to be competitive no longer. But the reason why a majority of them have disappeared is not because of gerrymandering. It's because of our own. what we call geographical self sorting, meaning more conservatives living in more rural areas, more progressive living in more urban areas, and you would have to actually go out your way to draw crazy districts just to make a competitive district. And so the uh lack of competitiveness... Uh, is, kind of baked into this geographical political challenge that, that we have. So even if we were to get rid of gerrymandering tomorrow, we'd still be left with districts that are most, many of them lopsided one way or another. I'm sorry to interrupt you. When you say make them more competitive, you talk about like what are you talking about the seats themselves that are competitive? Yeah, I'm talking about the seats themselves by virtue of the electorate in that district. So a competitive district might mean you have 30 % Republican, 30 % Democrat, and about 40% independents, right? However that shakes out such that you don't know how the election might turn out because the candidates, who they are, the positions they have, the work they do in the communities might matter in the course of an election as to... how the voter, a majority of voters in that district might choose to support the Democrat or the Republican. Competition is good because that means those candidates are trying to win your vote in the November election. They are trying to persuade you as to why you should support them and perhaps not the other candidate. When there's not competition in November, uh they don't have to work for your vote. They can take it for granted that, if 70 % of the district is always going to vote Republican, Well, they're never going to vote for the Democrat no matter who that party puts up or vice versa and so without competition You can't have accountability and without accountability. You can't get good results, you know from government So the question is well, what do we do if we are? Have a whole bunch of districts that are uncompetitive regardless of gerrymandering How do we how do we reintroduce competition if not for changing the district in some way? uh And in our view the answer to that There's a few ideas out there, but we think the most powerful and viable idea is to change our primary process. And so why is that? Well, if the November election is not a competitive, that means the election is basically decided months earlier, whenever the primary happens, when both parties choose who their standard bearer are. And so by opening the primary to all voters, including independent voters, that will mean that those voting in the primary is more representative of the district. So we support opening primaries to all voters. We also go further and support primaries that advance more than just two candidates to the general election, uh such that, and this is the case in Alaska, for example, they have what's called a top four all candidate primary. One ballot. You don't choose a Democratic or a Republican ballot. You have one ballot with all the candidates on it. You choose your favorite in any front, any office, and the top four go to the general election. And what that means is by the time November rolls around, when most voters will participate, not only does the election of consequence occur when most people are voting, it also means that when you go out and vote, you have more than just two choices, or what a lot of voters feel is the lesser of two evils. You actually have... maybe two Democrats and two Republicans, or a Democrat, Republican, and two independents, and maybe a third party in there. That's competition. That's choice. That's more freedom to choose who you want to represent you. And most importantly, that will produce an elected official who has to be responsive to a true majority of the electorate, not just to the voters in the primary. I'd love for you to maybe um unpack the term open primary kind of versus closed because this was something that uh it took me some time to get used to it. I born in California, uh moved to Washington and then moved to Virginia. And in the three locations, it was like the way I voted like. has been different. And, ah you know, I know that in California, and I could be wrong, so correct me if I'm wrong, like, I basically can either vote, like, I have to vote either Republican or Democrat, there's no independent option. ah You know, Virginia, I think there's a little bit more wiggle room. And Washington was great, because I never had to go to a polling place to vote. was my ballot came to me. and I could sit there on the internet and kind of look who the folks are. So like when you talk about like an open primary, like put yourself in the seat of some average voter that doesn't know all the things about voting that you do. Well, first, you know, I would say to your point, Will, most voters might be surprised that the way that they vote... might not be the way that other people vote in different states. uh We don't have one uniform national election system. And I think it's actually a good thing because states can tailor the election system to what best suits their needs. And all of that derives from the fact that when, let's go back to the constitution for a moment, when that was passed, uh the founders didn't prescribe the way that we should have elections. They set up some basic frameworks for government, but at the time there were no political parties. for example, party primaries because there were no parties at the time. So all the ways that we do elections have been invented over the last 250 years. In fact, primaries themselves were invented just a hundred years ago. And when they were, know, states decided to set the rules in different ways. And so you basically have four different types of primaries. First, in 11 states, there are closed party primaries. um Sorry, in states there are closed party primaries and I'm talking to be talking about for federal office and what that means is you have a Republican ballot and a Democratic ballot and only those parties members can vote in those elections. If you're an independent you can't vote, right? uh In the next set of states, which is 31 states have what we call open primaries, which means that all voters can choose the Democratic or Republican ballot. uh And then in the next set we have uh 11 states uh that are semi-open, which means if you're an independent, you can choose either the Democratic or Republican ballot. And then finally in three states, and again for federal office, you have open all candidate primaries. And these are the ones that we advocate because you no longer have to choose a red ballot or a blue ballot. You get what I call a red, white and blue ballot. You know, you don't have to... You can vote for Republican for governor and a Democrat for Senate if you want. You choose whoever you think the strongest candidate is. so California, Washington, Alaska all have these all candidate primaries. And if those numbers don't add up to 50, it's because I messed up my count and you can go to uniteamerica.org where you can see a map, look up your state and you can see the rules for your primaries. I have to commend you on uh one, pointing out your likely mathematical error, but then also like, limiting to your website. I'm like, that is like, you could tell a person that's been doing a lot of media, cause they're just like, they're on it, and they're on it just like that. Will, is that the rules change frequently enough where the numbers also change. And uh it's been a moment since I've had to run through the numbers. But the point is uh very different across all the states. And three states are in the very excellent category of giving voters maximum freedom to choose who they want. Yeah, when we talk about like the primary problem, uh does that only apply to just like national elections or like how does this work for me having to choose like my local delegate or something like that? Well, the problem is even worse, often cases at the state legislative level than it is in Congress. And that's in large part because there's even fewer competitive districts. And in the last election, something like 40 % of state legislative seats were uncontested, meaning you go to vote in the primary and depending on your party, you might not have anyone on your ballot. And then you go to the general election and there's only one candidate on there from the other party. And so the problem of competition can get much, worse at the state level. Our United America Institute, which is our research arm, recently published some report on what we call meaningful votes. We look at not just what voter turnout is, meaning how many voters cast a ballot in the November election, but how many voters cast a ballot, whether in the general election or the primary. that actually mattered, that actually contributed toward a competitive election that determined the outcome. And that number is barely over 10 % when you look at that for both Congress and at the state level. So even though we can have some elections where 50 or 60 % of people vote in November, uh which is lower than other countries, but still a majority, we're talking less than 15 % actually cast a meaningful vote uh with real choice and competition that contributed to an outcome. That's the problem that we're trying to solve. And we know our solutions work because the states that have the highest number of meaningful votes being cast are those that have adopted these open all candidate primaries. Like how would that look structurally for a state to adopt this primary system that you're suggesting? I mean, I'd imagine it would be a huge lift to do a bunch of training and stuff. And there would be a funding element, I'd imagine. talk to us about what is that structural fix? And how do you put it into practice? So in order to change the primary system, the good news is, as I was saying before, you don't need to pass a law through Congress. You don't need to amend the Constitution. Every state can decide to do this. So it's a change of statute. It's a change of law. And in all states, you have the opportunity to do that through the state legislature, convincing the majority of the legislature and the governor that this is a good idea and they should pass a new law to open the primaries. And in roughly half of states, there is a citizen initiative process where you can actually go to the ballot with a proposed law and by majority vote of the citizenry uh adopt these reforms. uh The case today with states that have opened their primaries, they've done it through both, but the more powerful the primary solution, the more likely it is that the incumbent legislators may be resistant to change. But it's possible. I'll just give you two examples. One I referenced before the state of Alaska, that top four primary was adopted in 2020 through ballot initiative. There was a group of Alaskans that gathered signatures, defeated, you know, opposing litigation, got it on the ballot, won a majority of the vote, and it was implemented in 2022. To your point, that did require uh appropriations to update the kind of voting system, voter education, so people knew how to run under the new system and vote under the new system. But it was used successfully. And not only did we see, we saw a near 60 % increase in the number of meaningful votes being cast, for example, in Alaska and more representative outcomes. So that was done through ballot initiative. Most recently, the state of New Mexico became the latest state to pass a bipartisan bill. to open its primaries to independent voters. So they still have a Democratic and Republican primary, but next year will be the first time that if you're an independent, uh which over 300,000 New Mexicans are, you will actually be able to vote. And sometimes you'll be able to vote in the only election that actually matters in your district, which is the primary. And that was done through the legislature. New Mexico Open Elections was the local partner that we worked with for many years on this and it was done by a group of citizens, Democrats, Republicans, independents coming together to say, this system isn't serving any of us. We may not agree on all of the various policy issues out there, but let's make our democracy more representative and more functional. You know what's so interesting about hearing you talk? um Recently, we had uh Meredith Sumter on from Fair Vote, and she was talking about, God, rank choice voting. I don't know why I blanked. And one of the states she mentioned, I think was Alaska. um I'm just curious, like, what is it about Alaska that seems like they got their act together with regards to election? Because, I mean, she made a pretty good argument for rank choice voting. Seems like a great idea. She's trying to make that more of a reality across the country. But is there something unique just about Alaska that you're aware of, you know, that has, like, these really excellent primaries, these really excellent voting election systems? Like, I'm just curious. Well, as a technical matter, the initiative I referred to for the top four primary system was contained both the top four primary and the ranked choice voting general election. So it was one policy, same package passed at the same time. So we're referring to, you know, the same reform that happened. But to your question, one of the reasons why that happened in Alaska is that a majority of Alaskans are independent. uh And they used to have... This is going back maybe a couple of decades. They used to have a more open primary system there that the legislature wound up closing. So there is something in the political culture there of independence, of free thinking. And a majority of voters there don't want to be sort of handcuffed into only being able to vote in one party's primary another. And they like electing officials, leaders who are free to represent them and are not, you know, beholden to one party. or another. And that's certainly what we've seen with leaders from Alaska, like Senator Lisa Murkowski. She's a Republican and she sees her role as representing a true majority of Alaskans, not just toeing the party line. And we see that with a lot of her votes in Washington, for example. But the system, it doesn't inherently advantage one political party or another. In that 2022 election, I referenced The conservative Republican governor Mike Dunleavy got reelected. Lisa Murkowski won her seat. uh And also a moderate Democrat and Mary Peltola beat Sarah Palin in that race. Very different outcomes uh in terms of people's party affiliation. uh But what was the case among all of them was that they won true majority support from the voters. And that's what matters most at the end of the day. What's your biggest obstacle, you think, ah to convincing people that this is a good idea? Because I, and I'm just speculating, but I think you hinted to it earlier, that if you were to make an argument to the House and the Senate and its current state today, to Republicans and why they should change things. like I'd imagine you probably hit a brick wall. But Democrats might be like, go on, you know? And then when it switches, it's like you go to Republican now, hey, remember the thing I told you about? uh So like, what's the greatest challenge is trying to like do the work that you're doing? Well, I would say among sitting uh elected officials, in legislatures, uh it's a bit counterintuitive. mean, the conventional wisdom is that the people in power don't want to change a system by the way that they got elected. However, a lot of people ran for office in the first place in order to be able to work with others to solve problems that they care about for their communities. And they see the detrimental impact of uh, these primary elections, for example, it limits them and what they can do politically and still maintain their office. And so you wind up getting a lot of incumbent elected officials that say, you know, good luck. Um, they want us to succeed, but they can't take that position publicly or they can't spend their political capital on it because the true opponents of reform are the ideological interest groups and special interests, uh, and, well-moneyed sort of partisan apparatus that derive their power and influence from controlling these low turnout, uh, party primaries. And so a lot of, uh, politicians are caught between knowing what might be in their best interest, frankly, and the best interest of their state or country and supporting an issue that would put them sideways with the groups that they may need to support them in order to get Re-elected so navigating that dynamic. I think is the biggest challenge within legislatures um When we talk to voters the good news is that a super majority of voters are with us on these issues Democrats Republicans and independents when you talk about the principle of the freedom to vote for whomever you want in every election The principle of elected leaders needing to win majority support They're on board with that at the same time um In order to get someone to vote yes on changing something, they really need to not only be convinced of the virtue of these principles, but they need to be convinced of what is the problem I'm trying to solve. Because otherwise there's a real status quo bias that comes in, especially when opposition begins planting some seeds of doubt. If you do this, X, Y, or Z might happen. And when you ask voters what they see is wrong with politics today, very few of them will point to the things that I'm talking about and many more of them will point to downstream the politician or party that they don't like. So we have an education challenge before us in order to demonstrate to voters that if you don't like what's coming out at the end of this process, bad policy or politicians that don't seem to listen to you, that's actually a function of the incentives of the system and we need to address that in a systemic way. And so that's the work before us. uh educating our citizens and creating some more political cover and pressure for politicians that deep down, I think, know this is the right thing to do. Yeah, I do not envy the work that you have ahead of you, but support it because I think, I mean, I'm probably a different kind of voter than like my mom. My mom is definitely low propensity voter. um I'm not, so like I tend to be a little bit more up to speed on it. And I think that everything you're saying makes. makes total sense to me. But I'm also like human and I'm recognize that in this political environment, like, like, how would you handle you know, a Bernie Sanders catches wind of this or I don't like a Marjorie Taylor Greene just throwing out two random names not connected to your organization at all. But but hopefully to prove a point. So if one of them came out, it was like, yeah, you know, Nick and United America have a vision for for the way our elections come out, you know. uh or should be done. If Bernie Sanders said that he's going to get attacked, you're going to get attacked, know, whole organization, same thing if Marjorie Taylor Greene said it, you know? So like, I mean, how like it just seems like the political environment we're in now to get any sort of legislative report or any sort of legislative support is going to come uh at a political price, even if like you're actually trying to make the system better. I'd love to deal with you. Sanders and Marjorie Taylor Greene to come out tomorrow together to endorse this idea. uh I don't think they necessarily will individually, but we've had in state after state a lot of cross-partisan coalitions and strange bedfellows come together on this idea. Because at the end of the day, what it's about is leveling the political playing field. We're not trying to tilt it towards one side or another. It's about reinstoring competition. and meaningful votes to the American people. And at the end of the day, big change will happen in our country when the people demand it. So really what will be required long-term for these reforms to win at scale is a bottoms up movement of Americans who don't need to be convinced that the system is broken. Trust me, know, 90 % of people are already there. The other 10%, I think, the... politicians and their families. uh Once though they connect the dots to these systemic causes and take action on it and demand more of their leaders and only support the candidates who support these issues, I think we will see a lot more uh leaders come out in favor of it. Is that person behind you a registered voter? uh Rocky, my dog, does not yet vote. We haven't extended voting rights to pets yet here in Colorado. One day, one day, Rocky, one day. uh So, like, if you are a um person listening, watching this, and you are like, have no idea, like, how my county, my state, my whatever, like, vote. I'm, you know, they may be listening to this and be like, is that already happening here? Like, where's a good place for them to at least learn? uh you know, more about that and then I'll ask you a follow up kind of just about like your website and stuff. Yes. Well, I'll jump ahead because they can learn more about that on the website, unitedamerica.org. In fact, we just put up a new post on our blog, outlining the types of primaries with a map where you can see the rules in your estate. And there are other partner organizations of ours. You mentioned Meredith from FairVote. We work with a group called Open Primaries and Veterans for All Voters. And these are groups that are active in several different states working to advance these. reforms along with many state level organizations as well. So you can head on the website and look for areas where you can get involved. And for you and just your organization, what does success look like for your work? Well, we have uh an aspirational vision that uh in the coming years, we will be able to achieve uh these reforms in a sufficient number of states to liberate uh a hundred members of Congress from party primaries. Think about it, maybe 20 in the Senate, 80 in the House. If we can protect the three states that have open all candidate primaries and win it in about seven more. uh That's a tipping point. That means there are a hundred members in our Congress that are no longer beholden to maybe the 8 % of voters that otherwise elect our leaders, but are truly being responsive to a majority of Americans, that's enough members to actually work with each other to find solutions on issues and forge the kind of compromises that brought us major landmark legislation in the past, whether that was Social Security and Medicare or welfare reform and a balanced budget. You know, big change happens in our country when we can get big bipartisan majorities for it. So that's one goal of ours. And the other goal of ours is to eliminate closed primaries nationally. There are 16 states where 17 million independent voters can't access the primary elections that they pay for. That includes half of all veterans, a majority of young people. So right now those states are telling those who... fought for our country, those who are the future of our country, they don't get to have a say. We think that's wrong. And we want to eliminate uh closed primaries in those states at the state level. There's also a bipartisan bill in Congress right now called the Let America Vote Act, which would do that for all federal elections. So that's what we're working towards. And because change can happen incrementally state by state, we're not waiting for one day, decade or two for now for... constitutional member, constitutional amendment or Congress to act, you know, this can happen and it already has. We've already seen states like Colorado and Maine and now New Mexico and Alaska, uh hopefully soon, maybe a Pennsylvania come in the mix that have opened their primaries. This has been done. And our goal is to help support those groups and those leaders that are working on this in their states where we have a shot at doing this in the next few years. um You also have a book that has been out for a while. So tell us about the book, how it applies, and where can people get it? Yes, thank you. The book is called The Primary Solution. It came out in the spring of 2024 and was really the product of many years working in the election reform movement and thinking about what is the most effective and impactful way to make a change. And that's not to say that fixing our primaries is a silver bullet or panacea, but as I make the case in the book, if there's one thing to prioritize that we can do that is both impactful and viable right now, it is abolishing party primaries in our country. So the book traces the history of how we got primaries, what's gone wrong, that they are now a problem, what's the solution look like and how we can get this done. So I encourage people to pick it up wherever you buy your books. That's awesome. thanks again, Nick, for coming by and helping educate us a little bit about what's happening around the world and actual solutions on how to fix it. Just a programming note, most of the people we have on the show come to us with a lot of problems. Not the guests, but they come to help explain the problems that are happening. You're one of the rare guests that actually... presents the problem and actually has the solution. So it's kind of a rarity these days and we should probably do more of these kinds of episodes. So thanks for coming by again, Nick. And to our listeners and viewers, hey, thanks for stopping by. Don't forget to hit like, subscribe, do all that kind of stuff. And then, yeah, just be good to each other and keep your conversations not right or left, but up. We'll see you next time. Bye.