Believe it or not, Vice President JD Vance has said a number of things over the years that I agree with.
For example, when he suggested “the American people will not tolerate another endless war” with regards to sending aid to Ukraine, I felt seen. When Vance told podcaster Theo Von “we need to release the Epstein list; that is an important thing,” I could not have agreed more. The sex trafficker received over $1.5 billion and 4,000 wire transfers to help pay for his operation. The American people should know who among us gave that monster money.
Recently Vance took to social media to point out that Republicans average 40% of the vote in California but under one redistricting scenario would be represented by only 9% of the state’s House seats.
“How can this possibly be allowed?” He pondered.
It’s a really good question — especially for Texas.
After Texas gained two spots because of population growth in 2021 — 95% of which is attributable to people of color — Gov. Greg Abbott signed off on a map that actually increased the number of districts in which most voters are white. In fact, 60% of the new state Senate districts were majority white despite white residents making up less than 40% of the population.
Vance is correct to point out there’s a dearth of Republican representation in California politics. But while Democrats have controlled the governor’s mansion and both state chambers for 11 consecutive years in the Golden State, in Texas the Republicans have held all three for 22 consecutive years — in large part because of the type of gerrymandering Vance denounced. (In California, it’s hard to fault partisan redistricting for the current mix of representation … because the state does not have partisan redistricting. Voters established an independent commission 14 years ago.)
Texas’ current map already seems to tilt in Republicans’ favor. Last year, the Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, won more than 40% of the vote in the Lone Star State, and yet today Republicans hold nearly 70% of the state’s House seats. And Abbott and his MAGA cohorts in office want even more.
In one sense it is a full circle moment for Vance to complain about gerrymandering considering it was a former vice president — Elbridge Gerry — who started it. One of the nation’s founding fathers, Gerry was governor of Massachusetts when he approved a Senate seat map that the Boston Gazette lampooned as being shaped like a salamander. That’s because it was drawn in an odd way to rig the system so that it bent toward Republicans. What Vance is complaining about was started by his party and has been the country’s reality since 1812.
That’s not to suggest Democrats are not also guilty.
Between 2010 and 2020, Illinois lost roughly 18,000 people. That reduction cost the state a House seat and required a new congressional map. For more than a decade, Republican Adam Kinzinger represented the 16th district — a swath of land that included moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. However, after the new map was drawn by Democrats, the 16th district was erased and Kinzinger was without a district.
That is the same Kinzinger who proved to be a crucial member of the Jan. 6 committee because the war vet put his country over party. So, while Illinois Democrats were busy grabbing more power with the new map in 2021, they unknowingly forced out a moderate Republican who would prove to be one of the few conservatives in Congress to stand up for democracy. He proved not only to be an ally of democracy-oriented Democrats, but to be one of the speakers at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, a move that he and they hoped would bring out more moderates to vote against Donald Trump.
Had the Democrats kept his district intact, perhaps they would have had an ally in the House fighting President Trump’s overreach. Remember in May when Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” passed the House by a single vote?
Therein lies the true danger of gerrymandering.
It’s not about what is snuffed out today but what is prevented from happening in an unforeseen future. Kinzinger voted with Trump 90% of the time, including against the first impeachment. Looking at that, I don’t blame Democrats for seeing him as a political foe back when they eliminated his district. However, when it mattered most, he was a democracy ally. Yet by then, he was seen as a doomed political figure because of gerrymandering. Sophocles himself couldn’t have written a more tragic tale of self-defeating hubris.
So yes, JD Vance has said a number of things over the years that I agree with: no endless wars, release the Epstein files, stop the gerrymandering. I agreed with the Vance who was interested in fighting for democracy. But to appease his boss, he’s retreated from principled stances. How the world has changed, and he with it.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The author agrees with Vice President JD Vance’s criticism of California’s congressional representation, where Republicans win 40% of the vote but hold only 9% of House seats, arguing this disparity represents warped partisan representation that should not be allowed.
-
While acknowledging the representation imbalance in California, the author contends that Texas presents an even more egregious example of gerrymandering, with Republicans holding nearly 70% of House seats despite Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris winning more than 40% of the vote in 2024[1].
-
The author emphasizes that California’s redistricting process differs fundamentally from partisan gerrymandering because the state established an independent commission 14 years ago to handle redistricting, rather than allowing partisan control of the process[1].
-
The author argues that both political parties engage in harmful gerrymandering, citing Illinois Democrats’ elimination of Republican Adam Kinzinger’s district in 2021, which ultimately removed a moderate voice who later became crucial to defending democracy during the January 6 investigations.
-
The author contends that gerrymandering’s true danger lies not just in immediate political consequences but in preventing unforeseen future alliances across party lines, using Kinzinger’s evolution from Trump supporter to democracy defender as an example of how eliminating moderate voices through redistricting can backfire.
-
The author criticizes Vance for retreating from principled anti-gerrymandering positions to appease Trump, suggesting that while Vance correctly identifies the problem of partisan representation, he has abandoned consistent opposition to gerrymandering when it benefits his party.
Different views on the topic
-
Republican lawmakers like Representative Kevin Kiley have introduced legislation to block mid-decade redistricting efforts, arguing that such moves are harmful to democracy and violate traditional practices of redrawing districts only after the decennial census[2].
-
Texas Republican officials justify their redistricting efforts by pointing to what they characterize as Democratic-led gerrymandering in other states, with Trump stating “they did it to us” when asked about the mid-decade redistricting push[3].
-
Justice Department Civil Rights division head Harmeet Dhillon has provided legal justification for Texas redistricting by arguing that four current districts are “coalition districts” that represent “vestiges of an unconstitutional racially based gerrymandering past” that must be corrected[3].
-
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders frame their potential redistricting efforts as a transparent response to partisan gerrymandering nationwide, arguing that if Texas proceeds with redistricting, California should counter with its own map adjustments that could increase Democratic seats from 43 to 48[2][3].
-
Supporters of California’s proposed redistricting argue that the process would maintain transparency by putting new maps before voters in a special election, allowing the ultimate determination to be made by California residents rather than through backroom political dealings[3].
-
Political analysts note that California’s current representation disparity may result from natural geographic and demographic factors rather than intentional gerrymandering, since the state’s map was drawn by a bipartisan commission and California is not considered a dramatic outlier when comparing congressional and presidential vote percentages[1].
