California Gov. Gavin Newsom is considering redistricting as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls a special session

By

Briana Ryan

Welcome to the Wednesday, July 23, Brew. 

By: Briana Ryan

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is considering redistricting as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls a special session
  2. Federal appeals court blocks enforcement of Maine’s Question 2, which barred election spending by corporations that are at least 5% foreign‑owned
  3. Twenty-three members of Congress have announced they will not seek re-election in 2026

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is considering redistricting as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls a special session

On July 21, Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott (R) called a special legislative session to address multiple topics, including redrawing the state’s congressional districts. President Donald Trump (R) said a mid-decade redistricting effort in Texas could net Republicans five seats and “there could be some other states.”

On Pod Save America, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) responded, saying, “I’m talking to members of my Legislature… I could call for [a special session] today, if I chose to. We could then put something on the ballot, and I could call a special election.”

Currently, Republicans represent 25 congressional districts in Texas, Democrats represent 12, and one district is vacant. In California, Democrats represent 43 districts and Republicans represent nine.

While Texas is one of 33 states where the state’s legislature has the power to reapportion congressional districts, California is one of nine that has an independent redistricting commission. In 2010, voters passed Proposition 20, which transferred congressional redistricting from the legislature to the 14-member California Citizens Redistricting Commission. Voters approved the measure 61% to 39%.

Here’s how that process would work: the Legislature can refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voters to decide with a two-thirds vote in both the California Assembly and the California Senate. Democrats control 75% of the seats in both the Assembly (60 of 80) and Senate (30 of 40), meaning they could do so without Republican support. 

Constitutional amendments in California require a simple majority of voter approval to pass. Drafting an amendment to give the Legislature power over congressional redistricting could follow several different approaches:

  • One would be to repeal Proposition 20.
  • Another approach could be to create a carveout, allowing the Legislature to control redistricting for a set period before returning that power to the commission.
  • Punchbowl News reported two other ideas: (1) make the redistricting commission contingent on other states, like Florida or Texas, adopting something similar, or (2) add an additional provision of interest to people who might otherwise vote against the proposal, such as a voter identification requirement.

A constitutional amendment cannot appear on the ballot until the first statewide election that occurs at least 131 days after the Legislature’s approval. As this is set in statute, the Legislature can waive the requirement.

The next scheduled statewide election in California is June 2, 2026. However, candidate filing deadlines are in March 2026, and the redistricting process would need to be completed before then, unless deadlines are adjusted.

Additionally, Newsom said legislators might be able to redraw maps without a constitutional amendment: “Every census, the independent redistricting commission does the new map. But [the constitution] it’s silent about what happens in between. So, it’s a novel legal question, and it’s being explored.” University of California’s Richard Hasen said, “Trying to just ignore the law and engage in political redistricting would likely get blocked by California state courts as violating the state constitution.”

Some Democrats in the state are split on the idea. State Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D) said such action would protect democracy: “Republicans can see the writing on the wall and we can all smell their desperation. […] We will always be ready to protect our values and the integrity of our democracy.” Assemblymember Alex Lee (D), chairperson of the California Legislative Progressive Caucus, said, “Democracy is a beautiful yet fragile thing and the more that Democrats or Republicans undermine the rules of law and democracy, it makes it more of a sham and less people believe in it.”

There have been at least 20 redistricting ballot measures in California since 1926.

In 2005, voters decided on Proposition 77, which would have transferred redistricting from the Legislature to a panel of three retired judges. Voters defeated the measure 60% to 40%.

In 2008, voters decided on Proposition 11, which transferred state Legislative redistricting from the legislature to a 14-member California Citizens Redistricting Commission. Proposition 11 did not address congressional redistricting. Voters approved the measure 51% to 49%.

In 2010, voters decided on Proposition 20, which transferred congressional redistricting from the Legislature to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. Voters approved the measure 61% to 39%.

Click here to read more about redistricting policy ballot measures.

Federal appeals court blocks enforcement of Maine’s Question 2, which barred election spending by corporations that are at least 5% foreign‑owned

In Maine, a federal appellate court upheld a district court’s injunction blocking enforcement of Question 2, which prohibited foreign governments and entities with at least 5% foreign government ownership or control from spending money to influence ballot measures or candidate elections. In 2023, voters approved the measure 86% to 14%.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Question 2 would be unconstitutional by limiting the free speech of U.S. corporations with foreign shareholders. Judge Lara Montecalvo wrote in the opinion, “The prohibition is overly broad, silencing U.S. corporations based on the mere possibility that foreign shareholders might try to influence its decisions on political speech, even where those foreign shareholders may be passive owners that exercise no influence or control over the corporation’s political spending.” 

The two other judges on the panel, Jeffrey Howard and Seth Aframe, supported the opinion. Joe Biden (D) nominated Montecalvo and Aframe to the court, and George W. Bush (R) nominated Howard.

Central Maine Power, Hydro Quebec, and Versant—corporations providing utilities in Maine—challenged Question 2 on constitutional grounds. Central Maine Power and Versant were also top donors opposing Question 3 in that same election year, which voters rejected. Question 3 would have created a quasi-municipal electric utility and allowed it to purchase and acquire all investor-owned transmission and distribution utilities in Maine, including CMP, Hydro-Québec, and Versant. In 2021, Hydro-Québec and Avangrid, the parent company of CMP, funded the campaign against Question 1, which prohibited the construction of electric transmission lines defined as high-impact in the Upper Kennebec Region.

Sen. Richard Bennett (R), a proponent of Question 2, said, “Mainers spoke with one voice: our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own. […] The court’s decision means that entities entirely owned by foreign governments can still spend millions to sway our elections, while Maine voters struggle to be heard.”

The Institute for Free Speech‘s Charles Miller, who supported the ruling, said, “The First Circuit sent a strong message that states cannot use trivial, remote, and vaguely defined ‘foreign influence’ over American corporations to make an end-run around Citizens United.”

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, unions, and other organizations. The ruling struck down previous federal limits on such spending, determining that these limits constituted a restriction on free speech. The ruling also affected ballot measure campaigns by allowing corporations, unions, and other entities to spend unlimited funds independently to support or oppose initiatives.

The ruling on Question 2 wasn’t the only recent ruling in Maine. On July 15, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf ruled that Question 1—a measure that limited campaign contributions to super PACs, which voters approved in 2024—was unconstitutional.

Two additional states—Kansas and Ohio—are also experiencing ongoing litigation regarding foreign contributions to ballot measure campaigns. Across the country, at least 19 states have passed laws prohibiting foreign nationals or governments from contributing to ballot measure committees. Nine states made these changes in 2025, a record for the most states enacting such laws in a single year.

Click here to read more about Question 2 and here for more information on laws governing foreign spending in ballot measure campaigns.

Twenty-three members of Congress have announced they will not seek re-election in 2026

Since our last update on June 16, four members of the U.S. Congress—one member of the U.S. Senate and three members of the U.S. House of Representatives—have announced that they will not seek re-election in 2026. 

Here are the four members who have announced their retirements since our last update, as well as how three independent race forecasters rate the 2026 general election for each seat:

Including the announcements above, 23 members of Congress—seven senators and 16 representatives—have announced they will not seek re-election in 2026. Compared to previous years, this year has had the highest number of retirement announcements at this point since 2018.

U.S. Senate

Seven senators—four Democrats and three Republicans—announced they will not seek re-election in 2026. Six senators—Tillis, Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Gary Peters (D-Mich.)—are retiring from public office. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) is the only senator retiring to run for another office.

At this point in the last four election cycles, there were four retirement announcements in 2024, five in 2022, four in 2020, and none in 2018.

U.S. House of Representatives

Sixteen representatives—seven Democrats and nine Republicans—will not seek re-election in 2026. Of the 16 representatives not seeking re-election:

At this point in the last four election cycles, there were 11 retirement announcements in 2024, 14 in 2022, seven in 2020, and nine in 2018.

Between January 2011 and July 21, we followed 370 announcements from members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives who announced they would not seek re-election. January had the highest number of members announcing they would not run for re-election at 69. The fewest announcements—15—happened in August.

Click here for more information on the members of Congress who are not running for re-election in 2026.